The general public can never fully comprehend the extent of torture, as it is a mostly underground occurrence that we are only exposed to in brief glimpses of news—such as the release of prisoners being tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison—and through distorted depictions in the media. I think that torture should be avoided unless in extreme cases, such as the time bomb case presented by Dershowitz.
Before the debate, I was against torture as a means of extracting information from suspects because it is easy for soldiers to get overwhelmed with the amount of power they have over those they are torturing. For instance, American soldiers extensively tortured and humiliated prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The controversial images that were released from Abu Ghraib demonstrated that these soldiers derived some kind of pleasure from degrading these prisoners.
During the debate, I had to defend a side that I did not necessarily agree with. Dershowitz made a good point about the ticking time bomb in which torture is presented as a necessary evil. The ticking bomb situation is one in which government workers capture an individual involved in a terrorist attack and torture him in order to obtain information about future terrorist attacks. This appeals to one’s sense of morality by presenting the audience with two extreme options: either treating this terrorist prisoner with dignity or by torturing him in order to save others’ lives. In this scenario, the cost of depriving an individual of his basic human rights by torturing him is less than the cost of letting many individuals die. I would agree with Dershowitz’s interpretation of this scenario. However, this situation is very rare and this method can be problematic. Even if this situation does happen, then there is a possibility that government officials can be torturing an individual who has no knowledge of the event at all, or even an individual who is not involved with the attack in the first place. For this reason, I am still mainly against torture because it is morally wrong and should be avoided as much as possible. Individuals should not be authorized to inflict pain on others because it gives them too much power. As demonstrated in Abu Ghraib, there is a risk of the torturers getting carried away with their job and continuing to torture individuals even after they have gathered all of the information they need.
“Dershowitz: Torture could be justified” was informative because it presented two opposing views of torture; while Alan Dershowitz advocates for the use of torture in extreme situations, Ken Roth contends that torture should never be allowed, regardless of the situation. Dershowitz attempts to justify torture by mentioning that through certain methods of torture, “countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords . . . secretly and hypothetically.” This attempts to put America’s use of torture into perspective: although it is morally wrong, other countries utilize torture too, so it might not be that bad after all. However, the fact that other countries engage in torture does not negate the fact that it is morally wrong. Dershowitz continues his line of thinking by stating, “If we ever came close to [using torture . . . ] I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.” Although I do not agree with his implication that the use of torture is inevitable and there are no better alternatives, I agree that the public should be aware of the methods of torture that are being employed. This way, the use of torture will not completely be in the dark and there will be more of a discussion about its immorality.
Ken Roth challenges Dershowitz’s argument by stating, “the fact that sometimes laws are violated does not mean you want to start legitimizing the violation by getting some judge to authorize it.” This accusatory wording makes it seem like Dershowitz wants to promote the use of torture by making it legal. However, Dershowitz makes it clear that that is not his intention because torture will happen regardless of whether or not there are warrants; however, these warrants will impose some regulations on the type of torture that can be used, who can use it, and when they can use it. Ken Roth further elaborates his point by saying, “Once you open the door to torture, once you start legitimizing it in any way, you have broken the absolute taboo.” I agree with this point; however, removing the taboo associated with torture will most likely result in people no longer brushing the issue under the table and actually having a conversation about it. Roth appeals to the audience’s sense of American nationality by stating, “We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, ‘Well, the U.S. is doing it, we’re going to start doing it as well.’” Roth then draws an extreme connection between torture and terrorism: “If you start opening the door [to torture . . .] you’ve basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that’s exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center.” This was very striking because terrorism is a taboo that no one wants to be associated with. By saying that torture is essentially a gateway to more atrocious acts, he implies that it can lead to events such as 9/11. Although the logic of this claim is not that sound, it makes a very emotional case.
Ultimately, I agree with Dershowitz’s claim that in the time bomb case, it causes less long-term harm torturing the individual involved in terrorist attacks in order to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. However, I do not think that Dershowitz’s argument could be applied to torture situations in general because these time bomb scenarios are rare. Rather than utilizing torture, the government can use other, less harmful technology in order to keep its citizens safe.
Humanization through Empathy 