According to Ron Suskind in his article "The Unofficial Story of the Al-queda 14", even though torturing of criminals who committed nefarious crimes may seem to be justice done, it should not be used when dealing with these criminals because it is still considered as an act of depredation and its effectiveness is limited.
I agree with the author's viewpoint because in my opinion, torturing of criminals to extract information works against the principles of human rights so often raised up by democratic institutions. Furthermore, the efficacy of torture is rarely achieved.
It serves as a rude shock for the international community that the United States of America, calling itself the number one democratic nation in the entire world, is responsible for most of the cases where criminals and suspects get locked up and tortured while interrogators grill them for information. It is an irony because the USA is often seen pointing fingers at communist countries for depriving their people of human rights, yet they themselves are the ones breaching human rights laws when they apply torture. The worst thing is, the US government never fails to obfuscate its rationale for such measures, while their apparatchiks remain intransigent and continue to follow orders without thinking.
Also, interrogating criminals using torture is seldom effective because criminals under duress tend to give irrelevant information or distorted accounts just to be alleviated from the pain. One example cited in the article is that of Abu Zubaydah. In order to stop the pain inflicted on him during interrogations, he named countless names of possible suspects but every lead eventually came to a dead end. Thus, the ineffectiveness of torture is also why I feel that torture should not be applied when dealing with criminals.
However, some people may disagree with this argument. In a separate account by former chairman of the now disfunct National Crime Authority, Peter Faris, he argued that torture can be justified if the information extracted is for the "greater good of humanity".
In his example cited in the article, if a member of a militant Islamic group in Iraq is captured but refuses to shed light on their operations which might pontentially cause massive destruction or harm to other people, tortured may be applied to extract the necessary information needed to prevent or minimise any damage done.
Despite this, I still think that the use of torture is not justified because it is simply abhorrent.
I understand the importance of racing against time to save the day. However, the use of torture is not going to solve the problem. Other forms of interrogation can actually be used to better effect, such as those employed by FBI, which focuses on getting to know the criminal better such that information can gradually be disclosed over time as relationship between interrogators and the criminals get better. Therefore, the use of torture is not justfied when dealing with criminals and terrorists.
I agree with the author's viewpoint because in my opinion, torturing of criminals to extract information works against the principles of human rights so often raised up by democratic institutions. Furthermore, the efficacy of torture is rarely achieved.
It serves as a rude shock for the international community that the United States of America, calling itself the number one democratic nation in the entire world, is responsible for most of the cases where criminals and suspects get locked up and tortured while interrogators grill them for information. It is an irony because the USA is often seen pointing fingers at communist countries for depriving their people of human rights, yet they themselves are the ones breaching human rights laws when they apply torture. The worst thing is, the US government never fails to obfuscate its rationale for such measures, while their apparatchiks remain intransigent and continue to follow orders without thinking.
Also, interrogating criminals using torture is seldom effective because criminals under duress tend to give irrelevant information or distorted accounts just to be alleviated from the pain. One example cited in the article is that of Abu Zubaydah. In order to stop the pain inflicted on him during interrogations, he named countless names of possible suspects but every lead eventually came to a dead end. Thus, the ineffectiveness of torture is also why I feel that torture should not be applied when dealing with criminals.
However, some people may disagree with this argument. In a separate account by former chairman of the now disfunct National Crime Authority, Peter Faris, he argued that torture can be justified if the information extracted is for the "greater good of humanity".
In his example cited in the article, if a member of a militant Islamic group in Iraq is captured but refuses to shed light on their operations which might pontentially cause massive destruction or harm to other people, tortured may be applied to extract the necessary information needed to prevent or minimise any damage done.
Despite this, I still think that the use of torture is not justified because it is simply abhorrent.
I understand the importance of racing against time to save the day. However, the use of torture is not going to solve the problem. Other forms of interrogation can actually be used to better effect, such as those employed by FBI, which focuses on getting to know the criminal better such that information can gradually be disclosed over time as relationship between interrogators and the criminals get better. Therefore, the use of torture is not justfied when dealing with criminals and terrorists.
1 comment:
Do you think human rights apply to those who have no respect for human life in the first place? Why?
Post a Comment