To Torture, Or not to Torture?

(The Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center on Septermber, 11 2001)

The “Torture Warrant” debate has been an ongoing topic of discussion within the academic community, especially since the eruption of the Iraq War. The methods of interrogation used by the United States Army both in the field and at overseas detention centers have been looked down upon by many of the American citizens, in part because it was happening secretly. The main idea of issuing torture warrants is to increase transparency and accountability regarding the use of torture on suspected terrorists. So, what exactly is a torture warrant? A torture warrant is a judge issued warrant that allows limited force on terrorists in extreme situations regarding the prevention of civilian life. By not issuing torture warrants during the Iraq War Americans were blind to all the suffering that was caused to sometimes innocent people.

The main goal of the torture warrant is not to increase the practice of torture or to make the act government sponsored, instead it intends to hold those who are serving to protect us responsible for their acts of torture. As an example, if a military official oversteps his limitations that were granted to him by the judge, and his actions deemed inhumane beyond necessity, the military official could be tried in the court of law for violating a torture warrant. This creates two beneficial connections, it will prosecute those who do overstep their authority, and also make it so that the torturer (a military personnel member) will not want to overstep their capacity because they would be publically shamed in addition to prosecuted by the court of law. The enaction of torture warrants does not come without a cost, obviously the introduction of torture gives a previously underground and rather secretive process legitimation in the eyes of the United States government. This cost is small in comparison with the amount of human suffering that it would prevent, as detailed by Alan Dershowitz in Tortured Reasoning :

If these horrible practices continue to operate below the radar screen of accountability, there is no legitimation, but there is continuing and ever expanding sub rosa employment of the practice. If we try to control the practice by demanding some kind of accountability, then we add a degree of legitimation to it while perhaps reducing its frequency and severity (Dershowitz 187).

Scholars who are on the opposite side, such as Elaine Scarry, while trying to express their discontentment with the idea of legitimizing torture, actually provide us with some good reasons as to why we should in fact have torture warrants. In an essay written by Scarry in which she picks apart Dershowitz’s argument, she explains that “Five thousand foreign nationals suspected of being terrorists have been detained without access to counsel, only three of whom have actually ever been charged with terrorism-related acts” (Scarry 198). This is the exact reason why torture warrants are needed. Without torture warrants people were taken and most likely interrogated heavily, even if they had no information or were not even a threat to American civilians. The process of getting a torture warrant would have distinguished between those who were truly guilty and those who were wrongfully captured.

The process of getting the torture warrant will make it so that there are no wrongful torture instances where the victim is mis-identified or innocent. Only people who pose a serious threat to the safety of civilian life will be eligible to be tortured, whereas in the past with no torture warrants some people were tortured even though they were completely innocent. For instance, if a military official applies for a torture warrant and upon investigation into the matter the judge finds that the man they have is the wrong person, as was the case with Khalid El-Masri, who was tortured for information, when the man they were actually looking for had the name Khalid Al-Masri (Lazo “Constructing Terrorism”). Building off of that, even for those who are found to be suspected terrorists with information regarding the destruction of civilian lives, the torture will be less cruel and degrading than it would be if there were no structured way to extract information. I would have to personally agree with Dershowitz on the topic of limited force in extreme situations, “I would personally approve of the use of torture against a captured terrorist who refuses to divulge information deemed essential to prevent and avoidable act of mass terrorism” (Dershowitz 184). The whole point of creating torture warrants is to save civilian lives.

(Photo of Khalid El-Masri)

Of course, everyone holds different values and beliefs that will determine whether they are for or against the use of torture warrants. It is a heavy choice to make, I choose to save innocent people from suffering, while holding those who overstep their authority responsible for their actions.

(YouTube Video Of Khalid El-Masri's story)

Bibliography:

Dershowitz, Alan. "Tortured Reasoning." Humanities Core Reader (n.d.): 179-95. Book.

Lazo, Rodrigo. "Constructing Terrorism." Humanities Core. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA. 1 Jan. 2016. Lecture.

Scary, Elaine. "Five Errors in the Reasoning of Alan Dershowitz." Humanities Core Reader (n.d.): 196-202. Book.