Imagine: There is discussion of several bombs about to be detonated in Times Square, word gets out, and you finally capture the head terrorist behind the macabre plan. The plan is as follows–systematic torture: in order to coerce the location and secure the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, at the risk of losing credentials and morals, or–allow the terrorist to sit in silence as the bombs tick away. The life of one, or hundreds of thousands, is in your hands.
After the 9/11 attacks, this “ticking-bomb” scenario is no longer considered just a theoretical prospect, but a very real judgment call made by war officials today. The debate on justifying harsh interrogation techniques and debunking them crosses several ethical boundaries, making it one of the most argued topics today. What does it all come down to? How far should officials go in trying to elicit information to prevent another large-scale terrorist attack? Could tolerance of torture catalyze a change in society for the worst (economist.com)? Junior Tatiana Anthony says, “If we lower our standards for humanity in interrogation, it could do the same thing for law enforcement and the society as a whole.”
Western democracies generally taboo torture, likening it to the use of nuclear weapons, and publicly criticize those who sanction it arguing, to legalize torture is to encourage torture. Opponents of torture further argue torture is an unreliable means of obtaining information and is rather used as a method of terrorizing populations or specific communities. Experts argue most torture victims are either innocent or of mistaken identity. Senior Muhammad Yusufali says, “I’m against torture. It’s fairly counter productive. When you end up with someone who’s completely innocent and doesn’t answer your questions, they’re beaten for no reason and it pretty much leaves you where you began.”
Beyond that, another reason torture fails to elicit the expected information because the subject says anything interrogators want to hear to stop the ordeal or deliberately lies to waste the interrogators’ time in order to make it more likely the bomb will go off.
Proponents of torture argue that the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against it. Junior Andreas Chai says information trumps any moral issues: “Information that needs to be extracted through torture is extremely sensitive and hard to get, otherwise, why else would torture be necessary? That information probably involves the safety of others.” The case of Magnus Gafgen in October of 2002 is an example of where the mere mention of torture has worked, supporting this pro-torture argument. Magnus Gafgen was suspected of kidnapping 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and was consequentially arrested in 2002 under the custody of Wolfgang Daschner. When Gafgen did not speak of the whereabouts of 11-year-old Metzler, Daschner would threaten Gafgen of severe pain (spiegel.de/international).
Again, the ethical question lies in whether this type of interrogation can ever be justified under certain circumstances. This crucial decision must be deliberately made by democracies, which cross “the line” …at their own peril.