Is the use of torture as an interrogation technique ever justified?

Yes

1 of 10

by Bill Stone

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Before we can have informed discourse regarding torture, we must be able to define it. We already have an idea of what behaviors constitute torture. Even techniques which are considered to be "questionable" should rightly be considered torture, and likely is, under international law.

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions outlining treatment of prisoners of war, which clearly state that torture of any form is not allowed. While some may find it hard to believe, especially those who inherently distrust the government, the United States has followed the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of prisoners of war. For an example, note the United States' handling of Japanese nationals in internment camps during World War II. While not combatants, they were protected persons under the Conventions, as civilian non-combatants.

However, the obvious slant on this particular debate is towards the conflict of the day, which is rightly termed the "Global War on Terror" (the GWOT). This war is currently being waged on several fronts, but the most notable is in Iraq. I will address the use of torture specifically as it is applied in the GWOT.

We are fighting a new kind of enemy in the GWOT. This enemy does not fly a flag. He does not openly carry weapons, and does not report under a recognizable chain-of-command. In other words, he is not a lawful combatant under the definitions laid out in the Geneva Conventions. This enemy is religiously driven, believing that his actions will grant him instant access to their version of Heaven. He believes with all his heart that inflicting psychological torture against a person or persons (and by indirect relationship, a nation) is the right and correct method to coerce that nation into acquiescing to his demands. This new kind of enemy is called a terrorist.

Based not only on the lack of national affiliation of a terrorist, but also on his chosen methods of combat, it can be clearly shown that terrorists do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions as a protected combatant. In order to be a protected combatant, you must not only fight for a nation, wearing a uniform and flying a flag, but your methods of combat must also fall within the same guidelines. For example, if a lawful combatant is using a protected facility (such as a hospital or church) to wage war from, are they protected? The answer is no. The fact that they violated international law by waging war from inside a protected facility causes that facility to now become a lawful target. Thus, the hospital or church can be legally and lawfully destroyed under international law, since the enemy combatants, by their chosen methods of combat, have removed the protected status of the facility. Terrorists practice their terror by intentionally involving civilians, a normally protected class under Geneva Conventions. This tactic is designed to break the hearts and minds of the people, and therefore cause the people to force their governments to acquiesce, lest they face further terrorist acts.

It is clear then, that by multiple definitions, the terrorist is not a protected combatant, but falls squarely within the category of unlawful combatant. The terrorists we currently hold in custody have been found by a competent tribunal to be unlawful combatants based on their lack of national affiliation and by their violation of the laws of armed combat as spelled out in the Geneva Convention. Therefore, they are afforded little rights under the same statutes.

Knowing that these individuals are not lawful combatants, and are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, does that in and of itself justify torture in any circumstance? Taken on its face, absolutely not. The spirit of the laws implies that the human rights aspects of the torture statues transcend the legality of combatant status. Indeed, it would be hypocritical to "fight fire with fire" and stoop to the same techniques used by our enemies, against them. However, these are not typical enemies. They are religious fanatics, believing that they are martyrs in their "jihad," or "holy war." Standard, accepted interrogation techniques are not always effective against some of these terrorists. It can be agreed upon that in most circumstances, a highly trained interrogator can overcome some of these barriers to cooperation, but not in all cases. Indeed, some cases may present a very compelling argument: can any form of interrogation become necessary to secure the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of American lives? Ideally, we would say that torture is never acceptable, regardless of the number of lives at stake. But tell that to the victims, after we stopped interrogating in order to not cross any boundaries, and thousands more innocent Americans died because of information which we were not able to extract using conventional interrogation techniques. Would we be able to honestly say that we did everything in our power to prevent another large-scale loss of life on our own shores?

In order to clarify the issue, let's make it a little more personal. If it was your life, or the terrorists, which would you pick? Are you willing to be a martyr for your beliefs? Maybe you are, but if you are responsible for protecting and defending the lives of thousands of innocent Americans by getting the information needed to stop an attack, are you willing to sacrifice them for your beliefs. and would every one of them agree? I bet you could find at least one of them who would not. Even within our own borders, you are justified in taking a life when it is in self-defense. Self-defense extends to defense of others when you take a life to defend the life of another. Even law enforcement in this country is allowed to lie to a suspect in order to get him to talk. Is this not placing psychological stress on that person? Would that not constitute torture by these very same standards? If not, why would you seek to hold yourself to a higher standard, especially when the stakes are so much greater?

I would submit to you, based on this review, that torture, under most intelligent standards, is not acceptable. However, in this type of war, with this type of combatant, we cannot rely solely on conventional interrogation techniques to extract critical information in all circumstances. There must be a mechanism by which we permit trained interrogators to push the boundaries in order to secure life-saving information. If we acknowledge that in at least one scenario, it may be possible to justify increased pressures beyond current bright-line boundaries, we can move forward with installing the correct amount of checks and balances to ensure that only the exact amount of pressure is applied to gain the information, and nothing more. When we stick to the same moralistic arguments, we force these methods to be employed in methods above the law, or outside our jurisdiction, because there will always be those who believe that torture is acceptable in more circumstances than what we have outlined here, and they will find ways to conduct that torture clandestinely. If we can make a gated process by which full disclosure and cooperation is offered, we can apply increased coercion in a controlled manner while not inflicting permanent physical or psychological damage, and only in the most extreme circumstances.

Learn more about this author, Bill Stone.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.