Torturing issue

The recent report of the US Senate on the CIA’s torture practices during the era of President George W. Bush has stirred wide debate, and condemnation within and outside the US. 

Some of the countries censoring the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EIT), a euphemism for torture, have themselves terrible human rights record but refuse accountability, accusing others of interfering in their domestic affairs and infringing on their sovereignty.

Politicians at both ends of the political spectrum in the US also criticised heavily the US torture techniques, especially because the US holds the high moral ground on human rights issues, including, of course, torture.

The debate within the US did not help much in elucidating the issue. Critics, mostly from the Democratic Party, say that the torture methods are indefensible and did not, in any case, produce valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means, and that US intelligence could have obtained similar or greater information through other methods, rather than torture.

Members of the Republican Party were less critical, accusing Democrats of politicising the issue for political gains, especially since US presidential election is only two years away.

John Brennan, the current CIA director, held a press conference on Thursday, presumably to shed light on the controversial issue, but was no less equivocal, saying that some of the information received did help prevent acts of terrorism in the US and identify the location and assassination of Al Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden, but also that it is “unknowable” that the US could have fought terrorism without EIT and that there is no absolute proof that the information obtained that way made a difference.

Attendees walked out of his press conference still confused as to where the current CIA leadership stands on this issue.

The defenders of the US Senate findings were caught off guard when reminded that the current use of drones by the US military to target kill “terrorist” or enemies of the US is no less serious than torturing people.

Why, they were asked, is killing terrorists less grave than “torturing” them to obtain information vital to the US security?

The irony in all this narrative about torture techniques deployed by the US is the fact that many countries of the world, with the exception of the Scandinavian nations, do resort to some form of duress to obtain information concerning their national security.

For them, national security is also a valuable, and critical, human right.

The question is whether national safety can still be maintained by ways that do not qualify as torture or inhuman treatment. There must be such methods, especially with the help of modern science.

The issue, however, is not whether torture produces results, but rather whether it is necessary in the first place.