The use of torture cannot be justified in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Torture refers to the officially sanctioned intense suffering infliction that aims to force the person to whom it is applied to say or do something or act in a manner that betrays their will (Steinbrecher, 2020). International law prohibits the use of torture in any given circumstance. The moral discourse that opposed the use of torture received affirmation by twentieth-century international legal prohibitions. According to Cox et al. (2022), torture violates key human rights. The authorities involved treat suspects inhumanely and degradingly. Thus, torture should not be an option, even in a limited or restricted form. This paper argues that torture is an ineffective way of interrogating suspects since it does not guarantee the accuracy of the information given and violates human rights.
Regardless, torture is still popular across the globe, and it has elicited a new debate questioning whether it is immoral and unacceptable to use torture in the case of efforts to fight terror in the wake of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism. The “ticking bomb” scenario shapes the new discourse. The scenario leads people to question their moral choices. It states that there is the discovery of a plot to destroy parts of the city using bombs that are nearly exploding, thus ruling out the possibility of making a timely evacuation (Cox et al., 2022). The only viable option is to find the bombs and disarm them before exploding. However, on police finding the suspect that knows the location of the bombs, they are unwilling to disseminate necessary information during interrogation. Thus, the situation only leaves the police with two evil options: doing no harm to themselves and causing terrible consequences or being morally repulsive and torturing the suspect in the pretext of saving others. Torture proponents argue that the latter choice has more moral weight than being passive. On the contrary, those against torture posit that no situation should warrant torturing another person.
Besides torture being legally and morally wrong, it is also ineffective. A perfect demonstration of the ineffectiveness of torture is the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The claim by Colin Powell before the Security Council of Saddam Hussein training Al-Qaeda in WMD came from al-Libi following torture by the Egyptian intelligence service (De Beer, 2018). However, it was discovered that it was a made-up story to escape the torture. Al-Libi’s story lifts the lid on the many untold stories of the possibilities of many suspects making untruthful confessions to escape torture.
Following Al-Libi’s confession, it is plausible that torture can effectively force answers but not guarantee their truthfulness. The use of torture assumes that it will end in the suspect divulging information that is beyond reproach. Conversely, torture may cause a knowledgeable person not to tell the truth while an innocent one cannot, and it is difficult to distinguish the two. Al-Libi’s case makes more sense considering that Arar also admitted that he confessed to all demands when subjected to the “extraordinary rendition” program (De Beer, 2018). Thus, while the authorities got answers, they were inaccurate.
However, the proponents of torture in interrogation are likely to challenge this objection to torture, alleging that the possible dire consequences of discovering false confessions are sufficient to make the suspects relay accurate information. However, a man who has suffered too much torture may develop rigidity to any form of torture and may not even fear death. Consequently, tortured suspects cease to care whether their information is accurate and instead prioritize escaping the inhumane treatment.
References
Cox, R., Donnelly, F., & Lang, A. F. (2022). Contesting Torture: Continuing Debates, Questions, and Reflections. In Contesting Torture (pp. 1–16). Routledge.
De Beer, A. (2018). The use of torture in the fight against terrorism. International and Comparative Law Review, 18(1), 51–88. Web.
Steinbrecher, M. (2020). Interrogation and Torture. Integrating Efficacy with Law and Morality by Steven J. Barela, Mark Fallon, Gloria Gaggioli and Jens David Ohlin, eds. Web.