Terrorism: Does It Justify the Use of Torture
Eric M. Skogen
SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility
Prof. Linda Atkinson
January 23, 2012

Terrorism: Does It Justify the Use of Torture
Torture is used by governments throughout the world to include the United States as way to extract information from a person or persons. By inflicting severe pain the torturer forces the captive to do or say something that could lead to information of a supposed terrorist attack or pertinent details of upcoming events. The act of torture has been used against prisoners of war, possible insurgents, religious sympathizers and political prisoners since Christ was crucified at the cross. In the early 1970’s, certain governments begin to see a form of violence start to evolve called “terrorism” and with that came prisoners who were called “terrorists.” Although many countries employ torture techniques against those that are dubbed “political prisoners” not all countries label them as terrorists or even face potential threats of terrorism to the extent other countries do. Over the next several pages I will discuss events that have taken place since the 1970’s leading up to the current terrorist acts we face today and how the use of torture has played a role in these events. I will also discuss how the use of torture brings up a great ethical debate of what is right and wrong and how governments attempt to justify the use of torture. I will state how one of the classical theories might resolve this ethical dilemma as well as how relativism could contrast this theory. Finally, I will close the paper with my view point on the use of torture and which train of thought most closely mirrors mine.
In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to the UN Declaration (1975),
“It explicitly prohibited the use of torture by states, under any circumstances. In Article 1, the Declaration defined torture: For the purposes of this declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Article 3 made it clear that there are no circumstances legitimating torture: No State may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (p. 1589).
Jump ahead to September 11th, 2001 a day I am sure no American or the world will ever forget. The US has suffered one of the most heinous acts of terrorism when hijacked planes are flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and what likely would have been the White House if not for the brave passengers on flight 93. The United States had passed a law in 1994 prohibiting the use of torture by the US military under any circumstances. The US was also bound by the 1949 Geneva Convention as a signatory, which prohibits the torturing of prisoners of war. In 1975 the United Nations clearly defined what torture was, it was black and white; there was no gray area. In this one instance on September 11th how many people felt the United States should do whatever it would take to bring those responsible for this atrocity to justice? How many of us had our blood boil over in anger and thought to ourselves there is not a harsh enough punishment to fit this crime? I know that this one event helped me decide to join the United States Army in the effort to bring those guilty to justice and would do everything within my means to help accomplish this.
Having been in the Army for over six years now I have come to the realization that as heinous as the attacks were on September 11th, we must learn to curb our outrage and the hatred we feel and make sound judgments when it comes to how we deal with the war on terrorism. Even as a United States Soldier I was ashamed and disgusted when the actions that took place at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, Iraq finally came to light. When the photographs of US military men and woman were released to the public I could not believe what I was seeing. I was raised to value the rights of all human beings regardless of their race, gender, or religious beliefs. I also swore an oath to protect the United States and all those who live in this country. Many times throughout the course of history the line between right and wrong has become skewed in a time of war. We saw several instances of war crimes during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. I am the first to admit that I wanted justice for the families who suffered losses on September 11th. I would have been willing to do whatever it took to get that justice and give those families closer. Could I have tortured a suspected terrorist and felt right about doing so? I could have at the time the attacks happened and shortly thereafter and I am sure I would have justified the use of torture the same way many agencies of our government and our enemies do. We are at war, it has been brought to our front doorstep, we did not ask for this but we are more than willing to answer the call and use any means necessary to insure this type of terrorism never happens again. As I stated earlier in this paper the United States is bound by laws set forth by the Geneva Convention to treat prisoners of war with decency and respect. Obviously the acts that were perpetrated in Abu Ghraib broke not only the Geneva Convention laws but the oath every Soldier swears to uphold and abide by.
The threat of terrorism has held much of the world hostage for countless years and the only way we will be able to defeat this threat is to continue to work together as one entity. Most of the civilian population is intelligent enough to realize that our government as well as our allies have and will continue to use any means necessary to stop any terrorist acts from ever occurring again; this includes the use of torture. Even though it would never be publicized or talked about, we can be almost certain that the use of torture to extract information from so-called terrorists will always be an option. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it; and I feel we have learned so much since that fateful day on September 11th, 2001. My personal belief on whether torture is justified based solely on the fact that a particular person might be a terrorist is in what I would call a gray area. As a human being I feel that all people have the right to be treated with dignity and fairness. We are often quick to judge or assume that someone of Muslim faith must be a terrorist because they are of the same ethnicity or religious background of those that have committed terrorist acts. Because people are so quick to judge I have a hard time agreeing with the justification to use torture on any person or persons for sake of intelligence gathering. On the other hand I am a United States Soldier employed by the greatest Nation in the world sworn to protect it from all threats foreign and domestic. From the point of view I have as a Soldier, I would agree with the use of torture if and only when it is the last viable option to obtain information that could possibly save innocent lives. I am bound by rules of engagement and other laws set forth in the Geneva Convention, as a Soldier I would never torture or mistreat any prisoner of war because it would not only be a violation of these rules but it is ethically wrong to do so. I will always stand up for what is wrong and protect those who are unable to protect themselves. I feel that sometimes extreme situations call for extreme measures and if that means the use of torture to try and obtain information that could possibly save lives, than I would agree with using any means available. I have had friends die because of the war on terrorism and other friends that are missing limbs and our enemy does not play by the same set of rules that we must follow. It becomes more and more frustrating ever day to see my fellow brothers and sisters continue to fight and for every terrorist that we bring down two or three more take his place. I live in a gray area where if the use of torture is needed to help save lives then it is justifiable. I believe that of the choices presented the choice that would be correct would be the one that has the most beneficial outcome for the most people. According to Mosser (2010), “in utilitarianism, one should always act in a way that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people relative to any other way one might act, or act in a way that maximizes the utility of all affected by an act, relative to any alternative to that act” (sec. 1.7, para. 6). Using the utilitarianism theory one could argue that the greater good or the most people would benefit from the use of torture techniques on suspected terrorists to obtain information and stop potential attacks. Although most people would claim that the use of torture is wrong and unethical, the utilitarian would argue that it is not morally wrong to use torture because that choice provides the greatest amount of good for the greatest number.
“The utilitarian recognizes that balancing security and the protection of rights can be difficult. At the same time, the utilitarian does not accept the conclusion that there isn't a correct and defensible position to adopt. Rather, identifying those rights that cannot be legitimately abridged, evaluating the significance of the threat to security that is involved, and weighing the utility of having those rights maintained while being secure to enjoy them are all part of the utility calculation. The utilitarian, on this view, then sees that only under extreme circumstances, and only as a temporary measure, can a citizen's rights be restricted. Otherwise, the rights that a citizen possesses are fundamental to that citizen's happiness, and thus should be fundamental to any determination of what will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, the presumption must be that rights are to be protected and can only be restricted under the most threatening and immediate circumstances, and only for as long as those circumstances permit. A vague claim of a potential threat to security cannot be used to justify a large–scale or ongoing abridgement of the rights of citizens” (Mosser, 2010, sec. 4.2, para. 15).
Basically torture can be morally justified under the utilitarianism theory because it does show that the greatest good will affect the greatest number but only under extreme situations should an individual’s rights be violated and only while the threat may exist.

References
Joyce, J. A. (1978). Human Rights: International Documents, Volume 3. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoof International Publishers BV.
Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2