These days, we commemorate the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Due to this, we also discussed in today‘s class about what changed during the last ten years, regarding diverse aspects from daily life (e.g. higher security checks at airports) to very basic ethical discussions. In my comment, I would like to talk a little bit further about what we just touched: the torture.
In class, I guess that certainly everybody of us agrees that torture is what we call a violation of human rights. But what exactly are human rights or what is their goal? Shortly spoken, I would say that the purpose of human rights is, to accord people a good life, means to protect their dignity, to create equality before the law and therefore ensure a moral life (or as Aristotle would say, a virtuous life). Although not only nations, which we would consider as part of the Western World, worked on the development of its charter, Human rights are definitely one of the greatest achievements of the Western World and it‘s belief in individual freedom.
Coming back to our discussion in class about how we could justify torture in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghuraib, one could argue that we should take a closer look at the people who are imprisoned at these places. If we assume that they are really terrorists or at least people, who hate the values and founding beliefs of the Western World, we can ask the question, if someone, who opposes our system in such a harsh and maybe violent way, has to be able to benefit from it‘s achievements. We also face these kind of problems in a very harmless way in our daily lives. Let‘s say a person really dislikes the grind of the class, but one day he (she) comes in trouble and needs his (her) help. Is it really honest to ask the grind for help?
The same arguments could be used for the discussion about the assissination of Osama Bin Laden. A lot of people, especially in Europe argued that Bin Laden should have been caught and been accused for his crimes against International and US Law. But did he really deserve a treatment like any other human?
Another and very famous point of justifying torture is, to think about the duty of a president, in this case, the US President. From an utilitarian point of view, the United States is facing a kind of dilemma: In order to achieve the „Greatest Good for the Greatest Amount of People“, the american society has to decide, what the „Greatest Good“ should be - National security or a high moral standard? At the moment, the US‘ decision is national security, and Europe‘s decision is the high moral standard (but maybe just because they don‘t face such a threat?).
I would love to read your comments on this provocative post. Please feel free to criticize me! :-)
An interesting post. I think it's a great topic.
ReplyDeleteI think there are 2 important things to note.
"If we assume that they are really terrorists or at least people, who hate the values and founding beliefs of the Western World...."
First, that's a dangerous assumption. Assuming guilt to justify torture is tough. There have been at least a handful of cases where detainees were tortured or killed and then later proven to be innocent. People make mistakes. We make mistakes. This assumption takes that out of the equation and, in doing so, may stretch the torture scenario too far from reality.
"...we can ask the question, if someone, who opposes our system in such a harsh and maybe violent way, has to be able to benefit from it‘s achievements."
This is also an interesting point. I would argue that these protections and civil liberties aren't only in place for the individual. Those rights separate us, proof that we hold the moral high ground. Due Process rights can't be revoked because (we *think* that) someone has done terrible things. They are universal rights that are designed for these circumstances. They aren't to be conveniently revoked because we disagree with them over the "values and founding beliefs of the Western World."
(I should add a disclaimer, i was not in class today- because i was coughing up a lung- so I'm not exactly sure how the majority of the class felt about this issue. Either way, I think those two things are important distinctions to make.)
A very thought provoking post. Thanks!
I would like to talk about the first quote that Thomas pulled from your post in the above comment - "If we assume that they are really terrorists or at least people who hate the values and founding beliefs of the Western World..."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas that that is a dangerous assumption, and that assuming guilt to justify torture is tough, but I would like to push that a step further. I would like to argue that there is NEVER a way that we can prove someone is a terrorist through torture. There is no 100% accurate way to prove that the person who is being interrogated/tortured is either lying or telling you the truth. Until there is technology that could LITERALLY read minds, or something similar that could prove with 100% percent accuracy, no one will ever be able to solidly and definitively state that x person who is being tortured is actually a terrorist.
Very provocative post indeed Flo.
ReplyDeleteLet me first begin with "A lot of people, especially in Europe argued that Bin Laden should have been caught and been accused for his crimes against International and US Law. But did he really deserve a treatment like any other human?"
You have a man that prides (that brags really) himself on being non-violent no matter what. Then that man gets mugged and beaten. What does he do? He looks for the man that did that to him, finds him, beats the crap out of him and out a bullet in his head. What would you call a man like that? You could call him angry, vengeful, but what he truly is, is a hypocrite.
This is why a lot of Americans are upset with the government's use of torture. If we were a society that had for a long time believed in the necessity of torture, this issue would not be as relevant today. But because the American society has regarded this as UN-moral and UN-ethical, torturing here would then be hypocritical.
So in my opinion the answer to your question is 'yes'. By the standards set in this society, Osama Bin Laden (had he been captured) and any other terrorist caught, deserved to be treated as any other human
Second, I really enjoyed reading Thomas' and Hannah's comments. I agreed with them for the most part, though I have to say Hannah that I am a bit bothered with the language you used.
ReplyDeleteNEVER is only true when it is applied to itself. meaning, NEVER is "never" true (even in this very statement). absolutes in general such as 'never' 'always' '100%' are very rare. But I found your point (and Thomas') very interesting, which led me to wonder if you guys have thought of alternatives.
I'm curious to know what would you guys suggest the government should do, instead of torture?
There are a variety of (humane) options for interrogating suspects. The Army Field Manual explains how to legally gain information from a suspect. It is not a "torture or nothing" scenario. There are appropriate methods for this.
ReplyDeleteInterrogators can be aggressive with suspects, they can be manipulative, and the Supreme Court has found that they can even lie to suspects during custodial questioning. They cannot, however, physically abuse, threaten, or mentally harm suspects (with mock execution, for instance). There are very clear lines on this issue as far as i'm concerned