Does Torture Work?
Before we delve into moral and ethical arguments about torture, we must ask the simple question, “Does it work?”
Pragmatism, as a moral philosophy, places emphasis on practical consequences. Something is deemed good if it produces the desired results. While it may appear utilitarian on the surface, pragmatism is not void of ethical standards. When engages in pragmatic reasoning it is from within a social or governmental construct. In the United States, the Constitution serves as that construct. A politician may be pragmatic in his public policy, but those policy choices must fall within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
The Church has long viewed pragmatism as a flawed moral philosophy. Its focus on practicality smacks of moral relativism, posing a problem for Christians who look to the Bible as their sole moral authority. But, when push comes to shove, decisions still have to be made based on what will work. For the Church, the Bible serves as the construct that reigns in pragmatism and sets moral boundaries.
The difficulty arises when the Church rubs up against an issue that pits morality and practicality against one another. Should the Church denounce the use of harsh interrogation techniques for the sake of loving one’s enemies? What if it could produce information that saves lives? Is it the moral choice to love our enemy while leaving others to die in the process?
Before dealing with such questions, we must first ask, “Does it work?” After all, arguments in support of harsh interrogations are only relevant if they produce practical results.
What follows is a brief overview of the pragmatic arguments for and against the use of the Bush administration’s advanced interrogation techniques. After reading, share your thoughts and discuss and discuss.
Arguments for Harsh Interrogation
A number of individuals have argued for the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques, including Former Vice President Dick Cheney and former director of the CIA Michael Hayden. They argue that these techniques have produced valuable information and banning them would weaken America in the fight against terror.
Are they right? Well, there’s little question that these techniques have worked in the past. After being waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah gave information that lead to the capture of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who later divulged information that lead to the arrest of Al-Quaeda’s Southeast Asia leader, Hambali, and warned of a potential attack in Los Angelas.
Another common argument is an appeal to the ticking time bomb scenario. It is argued that traditional methods of interrogation take time. Its a long process of developing rapport with a prisoner and slowly drawing out information. If ever there was an imminent threat to American lives, harsh interrogation techniques would be the fastest way to quickly extract information from a detainee.
Maybe the question to ask is not whether or not harsh interrogation techniques work at all, but whether or not they work best.
Arguments Against Harsh Interrogation
President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Senator John McCain, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all argued publicly that severe interrogation techniques are not as effective as traditional methods.
One of the most vocal opponents of the use of questionable interrogation techniques is Ali Soufon, an FBI agent and active member of the Joint Terrorist Task Force, On May 13, 2009, Soufon gave testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his experience as an interrogator working with several terrorism suspects, including Abu Zubaydah.
Soufon testified that the harsh techniques authorized by the Bush administration are “from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda.” Rather than leveraging the intelligence available on a detainee, Soufon argued that harsh techniques employ a “force continuum” in which interrogations become progressively more severe until the will of a detainee is broken. He stated that such an approach is ineffective for several reasons:
- Al-Quaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture that is far more severe than the US Government is willing to authorize.
- Terrorists are trained to expect torture when caught. When a detainee finds himself in a situation similar to that which he has been trained for, the detainee is given “a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.”
- Harsh interrogations often lead to false information.
- A harsh interrogation is designed to work over a period of time, often taking much longer than traditional methods.
- Those who conduct harsh interrogations are private contractors that do not necessarily have experience in intelligence operations, terrorism, or Al Quaeda.