args

The USFG should allow the limited use of Torture

DISCLAIMER: I have borrowed large portions of my case from a debate I did on Edeb8. I can provide evidence that the Romanii of Edeb8 is the Romanii of DDO upon request. I. Unethical Torture is a blatant violation of human rights, and is therefore a moral abomination that should not be practiced under any circumstance. The USFG is a signatory of the UN's "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", which reads: "Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" [1]. The USFG is contractually bound to this universally-accepted conception of human rights, and the practice of torture is in clear violation of it. But torture also violates human rights on a more fundamental, moral level. What exactly grants human beings any ethical significance in the first place? It is quite plain to see that the most striking factor which distinguishes humans from the rest of the amoral universe is their faculty of *self-ownership*. The existence of self-ownership is intuitively obvious -- since you are the sole user and occupier of your own body, you are the only one who can exert any sort of authority or control over it. Moreover, denying self-ownership results in a performative contradiction because simply the act of denying it (via speaking/typing) requires you to exercise your faculty of self-ownership. Thus, we conclude that all human beings possess ownership over themselves and, by extension, moral rights to autonomy and bodily integrity. With such rights established, we can easily see why torture should be considered morally unacceptable. It is literally the epitome of infringing upon autonomy & bodily integrity -- torture is the purposeful infliction of severe physical harm upon a person's body in an attempt to force them to act/speak against their own will. Thus, it is a moral abomination which only serves to dehumanize its victims by violating their most basic human rights. Given the gravely impermissible nature of torture by both legal and ethical standards, it is quite obvious that it should never be used, especially by the United States' *government*, which is given the responsibility of *protecting* people's rights. II. Ineffective Torture is a highly ineffective means of obtaining information, thus virtually erasing any benefit that could possibly come from using it. Under the duress which is invoked by torture, the victim is very likely to give false information or become completely unresponsive, as is confirmed by a growing body of research on the subject: "...a growing number of behavioral scientists has begun researching interrogation and lie-detection methods in an effort to scientifically determine what works, what doesn't, and why... a general consensus has emerged that supports the experience of interrogators like Soufan: torture doesn't provide reliable intelligence, the U.S. government's list of approved interrogation techniques is outdated, and detecting liars based solely on body language is barely more reliable than flipping a coin... According to Reuters, a Senate Intelligence Committee report, which will be released this summer, is also expected to find little evidence that the CIA's enhanced-interrogation [torture] program led to any major breakthroughs in the war on terror. And in a report released in 2009, the CIA's own inspector general found no evidence that the agency's practices stopped any imminent attacks. Nor could it ascertain whether the enhanced-interrogation techniques obtained information that the agency couldn't have obtained through less coercive means," [2]. Psychological studies such as the one conducted by the FBI's High Value Detainee Interrogation Group demonstrate that humans are most likely to just do whatever is necessary to make the pain stop, whether that entails fabrications that conform to what the torturers want to hear, or complete unresponsiveness [2]. This especially true given that in the modern world, the most likely subjects of torture are going to be members of radical Islamic terrorist groups, who are infamously capable of valuing their mission over their own well-being [3]. Furthermore, we have empirical evidence of the disastrous results of acting on information obtained via torture: false confessions which were obtained by the torturing of Libyan nationalist Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in 2001 are what eventually led the US Government to its ultimately pointless invasion of Iraq [4]. Perhaps most importantly, there are alternative methods of obtaining information that are much more humane, less coercive, and demonstrably more effective. Research on the effects of torture done by Matthew Alexander, who has much experience conducting/overseeing numerous interrogations that occurred during the Iraq War, has conclusively demonstrated that diplomatic methods of interrogation can be used to efficiently obtain consistently accurate information *even* in high-stress situations. In the words of one of the detainee's who Alexander interrogated: "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate." [5]. III. Public Perception In the wars of the modern era, one highly important factor for success is public perception, and using torture on the enemy has often proven to be highly detrimental in that sense. Take the example of the United States, when a Senate report was released about the CIA's use of torture in wars abroad: "[One Twitter user] compared the torture to acts of brutality committed by Isil... The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic militant web activity, said the Senate report had 'ignited an overwhelming response from the online jihadist community, with many calling for retaliation against the US and promoting jihad.'... Experts are worried the report could be used as a recruitment tool by extremists... President Barack Obama admitted some of the tactics detailed in the explosive report's 500-page declassified summary were 'brutal... we took some steps that were contrary to who we are, contrary to our values.'" [6]. In short, the use of torture in war causes the government to lose its "moral high ground", marring its reputation by appearing hypocritical to its own citizens and allies, turning moderates and fence-sitters against it, and opening it up to intensified retaliatory attacks by the enemy. == CONCLUSION == Torture is a categorically immoral abuse of human rights which should not occur any under circumstance, let alone at the hands of the US government. Not only that, but it is also highly ineffective and sometimes even counter-productive, with alternative methods of obtaining information being preferable in literally any scenario. Furthermore, the use of torture in war (which is by far its most common use) has unintended negative consequences on public perception and foreign relations. There is no case in which the government should be using torture. The resolution is is negated. [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3] http://www.nydailynews.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.lewrockwell.com... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...