Torture One To Save One Hundred: Would You Approve It?
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2007
by Jon Searles
Recently there has been quite a debate over what constitutes torture's definition. President Bushs advisors defined it as any act that results in organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" and should be punishable by law.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin tried to tie up torture by indicating that mild physical suffering and lasting mental anguish could be considered torture. Many against feel that any torture is wrong and immoral, but fail to define what is considered torture. Would knowing that September 11, 2001 could have been prevented by making one terrorist uncomfortable for 2 weeks by making him listen to loud heavy metal music be outside your personal definition of torture or inside the line?
"any act by which severe pain or suffering , whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." [1] http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
Whichever definition of torture you agree with will generally determine how you will answer or attempt to answer a specific question. If torturing one individual was the only way for you personally to save 100 lives, would you approve its use? I am not asking you to commit the act, for many would be squeamish or unfortunately unable to temper their cruelty once they started, but just be the one who approves the use of interrogation techniques that can be defined as torture.
The United States of America and its citizens must not delude themselves into thinking they are the world's moral conscience. Our better than you thought processes come after we, as a people, did our share of unspeakable acts of human brutality and torture. From the Salem witch trials, savage killings of Native Americans, dropping the most catastrophic nuclear device in history on Japan, and lynching of African Americans in our not too distant past, are we truly any better or more benevolent that others around the world? There are people in our country that inflict mental and physical torture on women and children every day. We are very good at making our principles fit the current situation.
So, I ask you again, if exposing a terrorist to extreme temperatures, simulating drowning with a wet towel over their face, treating them with less than human contempt, or committing some other creative interrogation technique that will not cause any permanent physical damage, would you approve its use to save 100 lives? How about 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? How many individuals would you allow to be treated this way until you felt you got good information? What if it simply would save one beloved family member in your own family? A little discomfort for one to save one and in the end both the terrorist and your family member lives. What is your torture limit?
Whether or not they will be affected mentally by an experience such as torture can be studied through those who experienced torture throughout the world. The Jewish people who lived through World War II, Senator John McCain, or a child who lived through sexual, mental, and physical abuse can all be scrutinized in studies of the human spirit and resiliency found in those who have experienced terrible things. Sadly we have many examples of senseless cruelty that human beings have inflicted upon each other, most of which is done for reasons other than to save lives through less than acceptable methods.
We should not be naive enough to think that a thoughtful, honest person can sit down with an individual determined to kill and inflict damage and get an answer by being nice, or a good listener. Please Timothy, we know you really don't want to kill those people, so please tell us where you put the bomb. After you tell us we can go for burgers and a couple sodas. I put faith in God's plan and pray for peace and harmony among the world's people, but the free will given us in the shadow God's grace and mercy many times results in mans inflicting horrors upon man. That is the world in which we live. "What would Jesus do?" He allowed himself with all the power given him by the Father to be nailed upon a cross.
So, what will it be, will you torture one to save many or deal with the act of violence and death that you, with a simple decision, could have prevented?
This Article has been viewed 1,614 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)I honestly can't answer your question. I'd have to be faced with the situation first. I know I would never ask a man to do what I wouldn't do.Please log in to respond to this comment.
Jon, a thought provoking article. Torture comes in many ways and as "unChristian" as it may seem, I believe that the same treatment that vile people do unto others should be applied to them. Perhaps then, maybe, just maybe one would give violence a second thought? I do not understand the minds of evil and I thank God I don't but I do not believe that there is any sane reasoning that could occur.Please log in to respond to this comment.
hi jon, good article, definitely thought provoking. let's say one terrorist was left alive in 911. would i agree with his torment and torture until he told our nation who was behind the attack? for all the good i try to do in this life, i am almost ashamed to say, yes, i would. for the better good of all involved. best regards, sue thomPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Excellent article and certainly one that tests the mimits of ones religious beliefs and thinking. I do think interogation is a necessary part of intelligence gathering, police or military work. To what extent anyone is mistreated and the methods applied cannot be tolerated by a so called professing loving person. We are in effect to literally love our enemies. However, are there ways to gather information without the torture? I am sure during the second world war we faced these issues. I am sure the police face them each day, just how to gather information. In fact information obtained under torture is most of the time not beneficial. No one but those who do this for a living know the extremes they apply and their long term effects. To cap a knee is not the answer. I do believe the long term approach is better and provides more real and helpful information. Anyway good article and thought provoking.Please log in to respond to this comment.
Hi Jon, I personally believe that the use of tortue is wrong in every instance. To ask ourselves if saving a 100 people makes it acceptable is simply a false justification a way of trying to rationalize away an immoral decision. Before you begin that tortue you have no way of knowing if it will save peoples lives but even if you knew, the ends never justify the means. Regards, BenPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Very thought provoking! It's necessary for a "civilized" society to constantly examine our beliefs!Please log in to respond to this comment.
Don't know, all depends on the situation I guess. I would do anything for my family even die, you ask hard questions. Mind boggling actually. Well Jesus was tortured for every single person to be born on this planet so that they may have eternal life.............so would I torture one person so that 1000s could live? all depends on who is being tortured... if it were saddam yes, if it were billy graham noPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Actually I thought about the comment I made, I really don't think I could hurt anyone no matter who it is, unless it was for my familys protection. Like I said, you have hard questions to answer LOLPlease log in to respond to this comment.
I would beat someone mercilessly to save 100 lives, even kill them. The problem is this: how can we know ahead of time whether the someone actually has information that could save lives directly? Sure, we could come up with some comic book scenarios ("on no, only the bad guy knows the combination to turn off the nuclear bomb!"), which I bet even would sometime occur. However, we have no system that distinguishes clear-cut cases of "yes, this guy obviously knows information that will directly save lives" vs. "we think this guy might know something that could be indirectly used to save lives", and it's the latter case that causes all the problems. How many people would approve of this question, "Would you approve of torture for someone who didn't actually know anything?" Because without a system which reserves torture for the situations where you know they have information that directly saves lives, from those where you suspect they have information that indirectly may save lives, you are effectively signing up for both.Please log in to respond to this comment.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.