Useful torture?

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan explores the purported usefulness of torture in his latest article "Does Torture Work?" - http://slate.msn.com/id/2106702/. He proposes that it is time for a serious discussion on whether torture is actually useful and whether it should be allowed under certain circumstances.

Seeking finality on an issue is quite logical, especially in light of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Lack of a policy with clear rules and guidelines appears to be one of (if not) the major cause(s) for the despicable accounts carried on in that prison by the US military. The current administration relaxed these rules in order to make it easier to obtain information and thus legitimized certain kinds of torture. This opened a can of worms. If certain kinds of limited torture were legitimate and it was not made extremely clear to everyone what they were the situation becomes a perfect setup for actual torture to occur.

There are a number of reasons the U.S. (nor any other respectable country) cannot have a serious examination of torture. Most of these points can be summed up in one word - politics. Doing something in secret is one thing, but broadcasting it to the world is an entirely different matter.

Neighbor relations aside it is still an impossibility to carry on a real discussion on the merits of torture. The problem comes down to a basic self-defense mechanism built into people. The bottom line is that even the most ardent anti-torture activist would think twice if personally involved. The self-defense mechanism ultimately comes before ideals. There are certainly exceptions, but nature has a strong way of promoting the self-defense gene ahead of idealism.

A really easy way to examine this problem would be to ask the families of those affected by the 9/11 tragedy whether they would support torture in circumstances where it might prevent another 9/11 from happening. Another way to look at it would be to think whether we would support torture if the lives of our loved ones depended on it.

Our security aparatus applies the same logic when defending us from threats. We can all look away in disgust at what was done to those poor Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, but I don't think very many people would mind (especially not the ones who might have been affected) should a "little" torture happen in order to avoid another 9/11.

It is very easy to say that torture is ineffective due to the fact that under extreme duress people will confess to anything. This is where Mr. Kaplan raises a very interesting question - why has torture continued to be used for centuries if it is not an effective way of getting information?

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether torture is effective or not as long as there is belief that it could be. And let's face it... that belief is not going to go away. A person witholding information judged as important is increasingly more likely to be pressured to turn it over with every passing minute. As time passes the urgency increases and thus the pressure methods get more severe. Ultimately there is no way to avoid torture in these circumstances.

Sadly, as long as there is human conflict torture will remain a grim, unspoken reality. In order to reduce its occurence every government has an obligation to enact and promote strong anti-torture policies. The United States cannot be an exception and needs to immediately denounce torture and withdraw its legalese justification of the same. The State Department may otherwise have to place the US on its list of human rights abusers next year.