When one hears of torture, they immediately think
of the middle ages (incorrectly) or of the inhumane treatment by the Axis Powers
during the Second World War. However the use of torture is not a bygone
process. On the contrary torture has been found to have occurred in the last
decade. And the party responsible is not an uncivilized group or nation. The
assailants acted under the authority of none other than the United States’
Central Intelligence Agency. The individuals which were subjected to various
tortures – such as waterboarding, containment in small boxes, standing
handcuffed to hanging rods for weeks at a time – were prisoners who were
accused of being important leaders of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. The goal
of this torturing and subsequent interrogations was to extract information
regarding the identities of additional terrorists and potential targets. Although
there was much controversy regarding this use by the American forces to gain
information, the importance lies in the fact that the torture was not the
product of rogue subordinates in the field. What is more the decision to
utilize this form of extraction was decided by higher officials back in the
states.
In a 2009 article from the New York Times, a
C.I.A. officer stated that, “It wasn’t up to individual interrogators to decide…
[because every step] had to have the approval of the deputy director for
operations” (Danner). The officer continued that before any torture could be
done, those in the field had to ask permission via cable transmission of their
superiors (Danner, 2009). Thus it was beyond the power of the “boots on the
ground” to make the decisions about whether or not to apply torture to an
individual. The author of the article further writes that although there is
need for justice to be directed toward the alleged terrorists that “the use of torture
deprives society… of the possibility for rendering justice. Torture destroys
justice… in effect [relinquishing] this sacred right in exchange for
speculative benefits whose value is… much disputed” (Danner, 2009).
Essentially torture of terrorists would come to
be a major trouble in the American War on Terror, creating much highly
debatable results. There are many similarities that exist between the 21st
century and the early modern era when torture would be used to great extant to
withdraw information during the great witch-hunts. Looking back at the accounts
of the witch-hunts, what are the links that officials in power had over the
torture procedures? And do you feel that the information that is gained from
torture, whether in the present day or centuries ago, is truly beneficial to
the original intention of the torturers?
 |
| Early Modern Depiction of a Torture Technique that would be used in the 21st Century. |
To
read the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15danner.html?_r=0
I think, as we have discussed in class, that the information received after rounds of torture is not always the most accurate. We have seen in many primary sources how people were simply trying to tell their persecutors what they thought they wanted to hear in order to make the suffering stop. Who's to say that this isn't also happening right now after these prisoners of the 21st century are being tortured?
ReplyDeleteObviously information gathered under torture cannot be 100% trusted. A lot of it depends on the intention of the torturer. One thing that I sort of picked up on is in a lot of cases the torturing of alleged witches was to get a confession rather than information. If that's the objective of the torture then you really aren't gathering any sort of information. Torture from the 21st century seems to be more oriented towards gathering information, rather than confessions.
ReplyDeleteDylan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a great post and for sharing some facts and your opinions regarding torture and its current usage. It's great to see how you connected what is still occurring today with our studies in class, which really helps to open our eyes and help us understand a bit more.
A thought and question that comes into my mind after reading this involves the "boots on the ground" calling to get authorization and permission for torture. True, the last and final decision would not be made by those interrogators, but what if they simply elected to end their interrogation techniques or to continue with whatever they were currently practicing? Without a telephone call or correspondence to receive authorization, there is no permission and no justification - for lack of a better term - to perform such heinous actions. These field subordinates, if they were so abhorrently against committing such actions and treating others in such a way, were not required to do so. They were not forced. Although they were serving in the armed forces and were required to abide by their COs orders, they can elect to be discharged. Simply outright refusing an order, after being allocated the proper punishment in the field, would result in a discharge for disorderly conduct. If individuals such as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, etc., are not bound by the laws and orders given to them, the soldiers engaging in such actions are no different. Further connecting to the small clip of the HBO documentary Ghosts of Abu Ghraib that we viewed in class, the soldiers involved seemed to only feel remorse after the fact and after they had been charged for their actions.
The information gained from interrogation and torture that these accused witches experienced during their trials cannot be taken as fact; as discussed, often the accused would simply provide confessions or information that would result in the ending of their interrogation and the treatments that they had experienced. Do you think the Inquisitors or those interrogating the accused ever felt remorse after the fact? Do you think they ever stopped to ask someone else for permission before deciding to continue with their actions? Bernard Gui, Dominican monk who was one of the most prominent inquisitors of the time, doesn't have any accounts of asking for authorization or reinforcement of his actions. If he needed to do so, to whom would he ask?
Thanks for a great post!
Graham