Is torture an option?
Perspectives on issues
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and noted liberal, has appalled his fellow civil libertarians by advocating the use of torture on uncooperative terrorist suspects. He justifies his stance by pointing out that the apprehended terrorist may know information about future attacks; information we must discover if we are to uncover the plots and save the lives of those targeted.
The issue of torture seems particularly relevant in light of the recent capture of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, an al Qaida bigwig whose increased communication with his terrorist underlings over the past several weeks is the reason for the heightened terror alert and duct tape shortage. We have in our custody a man who helped to plan two World Trade Center bombings, the African Embassy bombings, the Bali nightclub bombing and the end of thousands of innocent lives. And who almost certainly knows where and how al Qaida plans to strike next. His response to interrogation so far has been to quote the Koran. Should we torture him?
No.
I define "torture" as inflicting intense pain to punish or coerce. Some timeless favorites include tearing out fingernails, forcing the victim to drink an extreme volume of water, the rack, the wheel, the iron maiden, etc. Despite what certain "Human Rights" organizations claim, the United States' interrogation techniques do not amount to torture.
We have every right to interrogate Mohammed. Use psychological "good cop, bad cop" techniques, leave the lights on or make him wear black goggles until he doesn't know what time of day it is, feed him sodium pentothal or alcohol or whatever else may loosen his tongue and make him stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time. Whatever can reasonably and humanely be done to prevent his terrorist friends from committing further murders. But actual torture is not justified.
I love my country for its unique virtues--unparalleled freedom of speech and thought, and due process reverenced almost to a fault. And I loathe those who employ torture--the dictators, the tyrants, the Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein and a myriad of other psychopaths who run countries by oppression, fear and death. There's something that quite simply turns my stomach in the suggestion that we descend to their depravity. Even if it seems necessary to protect ourselves against them. It sickens me to think of deliberately causing another person horrible pain, no matter his crime.
From a pragmatic point of view, it won't even do much good. Information gained from torture is often unreliable or simply false--if guilty, he may confess to the truth, but he may just as likely confess to a bunch of trumped-up lies as well--anything to stop the torture. And if he's by some chance innocent, he'll confess to anything to end the torture. Not a very reliable pattern. And in Mohammed's case we already know most of what he knows--his notebooks, computers, and correspondences were also seized.
"These guys are all warriors in a battle against us, they are not felons." The Washington Post quoted this unnamed administration official, and he could not be more correct. We take a hard line. We treat them as enemies. We gather life-saving intelligence by whatever means available. But we do not abandon the principles we're fighting for.
--Cassandra Showell is an aerospace engineering junior. Her column usually appears on alternate Fridays. She can be reached at dailyopinion@ou.edu.
hello there & you too