‘Tȯr-chər’
The ongoing debate of torture is one that has survived through out the years; it dates back possibly to the pre-historic times. Evidence of torture in our history is elaborate in the way that it existed even in those times when new and brilliant inventions were industrialized, it existed in periods when the most religious moments took place, as it exist still today. Such an inescapable subject as torture should be examined in broad perspectives so it can be better understood. Torture’s is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the infliction of intense pain as from burning, crushing, or wounding to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. The Convention Against Torture defines it as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering and it requires states to criminalize torture.
Two very distinct essays that will help me better explain this topic is, “Inhuman Behavior,” which was written by Major General Kermit D. Johnson, the other is called, “A Case for Torture,” written by Mirko Bagaric. Kermit D. Johnson is a decorated Army officer who has served as Chaplain in the Washington Office of The Presbyterian Church. Mirko Bagaric is head of Deakin University Law School as well as a professor of the law, he also has written numerous of books. They both discuss the same issue with opposite views all the while standing by it so fiercely that they describe their points of view very clearly and precise.
In “Inhuman Behavior,” Johnson says, “torture is a form of terrorism,” obviously stating his point of view from the gecko regarding torture. Being that his career implies working with a church, his chaplain positions seems to influence in his decisions, “I would say that if war causes us to suppress our deepest religious, ethical and moral convictions, then we have indeed caved in to a "higher religion" called war”. Johnson considers torture’s only purpose is to “terrify prisoners so they will yield information,” he also states that when torture is encouraged “two war crimes are committed,” against the torturer and the tortured. According to Johnson, the individuals’ conscience will forever carry the burden of shame, guilt, mental torment and self-hatred. Johnson spots areas of concern in the amendment that prohibits torture, offered by Senator John McCain. The definition of torture has been reinterpreted by the Justice Department into physical pain amounting to torture that must be the same in intensity to the pain associated with severe substantial injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death. In his essay Johnson also states that “the public has been dragged through a labyrinth of denials, retractions, redefinitions and tortured arguments, all designed to justify and rationalize lowered moral standards in the treatment of prisoners, not to strengthen and defend high ethical standards.”
In “A Case for Torture” Mirko Bagaric talks about just that; a scenario in which torture is the only logical reasoning to a situation needing strict dealings, “torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation...” he goes on by giving a couple of examples in a hostage setting and saying that if one was given the option of choosing to inflict harm on a “wrongdoer” in order to save the life of an innocent person that it would be immoral to select the life of the “wrongdoer”. Bagaric questions “How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life…” then he states that “if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.” He believes that in relatively limited situations, torture will persuade communities to think cautiously about ethical decisions. Basically Mirko Bagaric thinks that torture should be acceptable and clearly states that if lives are lost based on the fact that it was not decided to take action of torture then it is “code for moral indifference”.
On contrast to Bagaric’s beliefs, Johnson does not think that torture is the answer in any type of situation. Bagaric uses scenarios in which he thinks torture is the obsolete key in saving an innocent life while Johnson believes that both parties (torturer and the tortured) are victims. Johnson defends the rights of both; he states that “when ever we torture or mistreat prisoners, we are capitulating morally to the enemy -- in fact, adopting the terrorist ethic that the end justifies the means.” He believes that the U.S. should set an example instead of prevailing in the means of torture. Bagaric’s essay states the opposite; he thinks it is unethical, immoral, and completely wrong to even consider choosing sides. According to Bagaric, in a case where one must pick, the only choice should be the innocent and if torture is the option to save a life then it should not be questioned.
Both essays rely on examples that lean toward political leverage. In “A Case for Torture,” Bagaric includes circumstances with criminal affairs, and the choice must be made between the guiltless and the illicit. His examples include decisions that must be made by the police in a case of a hostage situation. Johnson focuses his examples on the officers, terrorists, interrogators and highlights the amendment offered by Senator McCain. In order to backup their points of view they dug deep in what they were well-informed. For Bagaric it was law enforcement, and for Johnson it was his profession. At the end of his essay Bagaric hopes that the debate on torture will “prompt us to correct some of these fundamental failings.” Johnson ends his with a statement Captain Ian Fishback made in a letter to Senator McCain, “Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as al-Qaeda’s we should not be concerned. When did al-Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States?” If Johnson was not clear to which side he stood on regarding the strong debate of torture, this would have amplified it greatly.
