Blog #4: “Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress?”

Torture: A little bit tends to spread like wildfire. As evident in the Abu Ghraib incident and following investigations, the tactic of using torture to gain information is a highly controversial and sensitive issue, as it should be. While reading this Taking Sides article, I was confused as to how I really felt. On one hand, there is the idea that in order to save the lives and safeguard the freedom of millions, it must be withheld from a few. However, on the other side, the argument stands that this is America, and we stand for freedom, not just for us, but for everyone.

Personally, I found this debate intriguing, due to the complicity of the issue at hand. During the reading, I could have picked either side for multiple reasons, but in the end, I side with the pro-torture (only in certain circumstances) side of the debate. Allow me to explain: from the reading, there are three types of war prisoners. The first is the ordinary soldier caught on the battlefield. No form of torture should ever come to him at anytime. Second is the captured terrorist, and third is the terrorist with information. Definitely number three should be subject to methods of torture in order to gain information that could lead to the saving of many other lives. However the complication comes in when determining number two from number three. Unless one is absolutely, without-a-doubt, for certain that the detainee in question holds information that could potentially save other lives, torture should not be an option. We, as America, cannot falsely torture innocent prisoners if we don’t know for certain that these prisoners hold coveted information that could save many other lives. As the opposition to this debate argues, and as it applies in this area of my opinion, “[Torture] is anti-ethical to the most basic principles for which the United States stands for.” However, as applied to the President of the United States’ standpoint, if the situation came up where information was needed, and there was a possible suspect that held that information, then “elected leaders, responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, have to do what is necessary to get information that could prevent mass murder…” and in some cases, that includes torture. Sure it is immoral, but in order to save and protect the freedom of millions, unfortunately we have to forget about a few.

The issue of September 11th came up in the article with this passage: “Have we learned nothing from 9/11?” Because September 11, 2001 was one of the darkest days in our history, and certainly in my lifetime, it is important to do whatever is necessary (again from the standpoint of the President) to prevent it from happening again. If we have learned anything from history, it is that it repeats itself. We cannot allow it to happen to us again, and as a country, we must do what is necessary to prevent that.

More debate comes from the fact that this is a very complicated issue. As the United States, freedom is our central foundation. Important documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution focus on freedom, not just for us in America, but for everyone in the world, because we are all human. However, I argue that when someone acts in a way that is sub-human, such as plotting and carrying out an event like 9/11, then they lose their so-called title of being human. Torture is seen around the world as the “anti-freedom,” and association with the United States is an oxymoron of sorts. Except that, like most countries, we have our own best interests at heart. I believe that torture should be allowed when it is used to keep the millions of Americans in this country safe and free. The old “kill one to save a million” comes back into play, and the people who threaten our freedom will have theirs stripped.

Once again, the complication comes when the absolute certainty comes along. Unless we are for-certain, we cannot torture someone who may be innocent. This is not only illegal, but highly immoral. However, in the situation of the confirmed terrorist with information, all bets are off, and the information must be learned for the good of the United States of America.

In closing, the issue of using torture to get information that could save the lives of many is both complicated and controversial. I believe that only when absolutely certain that a suspected terrorist has information, should torture be allowed. Only then, with that information, can other 9/11-plotters be stopped, and our great country kept safe. Freedom is our foundation, and we must make sure others have the same rights to it as we do, as long as they follow the “rules” and stay humane. When terrorists enter the picture, everything is distorted, and torture helps sort it out. However, as stated in the beginning, caution must be used, for a little bit of torture tends to spread like wildfire.