|
Torture is a Problem, Not a
Solution; Tom Ridge, torture, and the ticking time bomb
- by Mary Shaw
On January 15, the BBC quoted outgoing U.S. Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge as saying that the U.S. did not condone the use
of torture to extract information from terrorists, but that under an
"extreme set" of hypothetical circumstances, such as a nuclear
threat, "it could happen."
Heaven help us.
Ridge's nuclear threat scenario borrows from the age- old "ticking
bomb" hypothesis, which attempts to justify torture in situations in
which extracting information from one terrorist might save hundreds
of people. However, not only can torture never be justified, but the
ticking bomb scenario is unrealistic at best.
In an October 2001 survey, 45 percent of Americans who reported that
they approved of torture were approving of the "torture of known
terrorists if the terrorists know details about future terrorist
attacks." So how do we know for sure who actually has the
information that we seek? How do we know who will tell the truth
under torture, who will say anything just to make the pain stop, or
who will simply endure it as a religious discipline? And how can we
possibly justify the risk of torturing innocent suspects, as we've
seen happen at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere?
In this post-9/11 world, gaining information from prisoners is
certainly of critical importance. But torture, aside from being
unethical, is also unreliable and counterproductive.
Many experts on interrogation believe that torture is actually one
of the least effective ways to gain accurate information. And is
there any more effective method of fostering resentment amongst real
terrorists who may seek revenge on America for the mistreatment of
their imprisoned brothers?
Furthermore, by using torture in the interrogation of terror
suspects and thereby violating a universal human right, the U.S.
risks alienating its international allies - allies whose support in
the "war on terror" is now more critical than ever.
The use of torture violates countless international agreements that
the U.S. has signed and ratified, including the Geneva Conventions,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Convention Against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall
be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment." There are no exceptions. Torture is, in other words,
one of those nonderogable rights that are prohibited absolutely
under all circumstances. That is one reason why, under international
law, all countries have jurisdiction to prosecute torturers,
regardless of where the torture took place.
Those who advocate torture tend to use mental tricks to dehumanize
their victims, presumably so they can then rest assured that those
persons are not entitled to human rights.
Some borrow a term from Dick Cheney and label them "barbarians" in
order to justify their mistreatment. But is it any better to be
labeled a "torturer?"
Barbarian. Torturer. Is this our future?
Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International
USA, summed it up well: "Torture never makes the world safer, only
more hideous."
-----
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She currently
serves as Philadelphia Area Coordinator for Amnesty International,
and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues
have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and
magazines worldwide. E-mail mary@maryshawonline.com.
Read more of Mary's writing in the archive:
http://www.opednews.com/archivesShawMary.htm
|
Contribute
$$ to OpEdNews
|
|
