Denny Staples

English II Pre-AP 1
April 26, 2006

Pulling the Plug: Torture Termination

International conflicts are things that are undeniably unavoidable. While it is

impossible to achieve worldwide peace, it is entirely possible to strive for more humane

international struggles. Struggles deprived of barbaric, truculent, uncouth behavior. One

of these unnecessary behaviors is torture – a monstrous practice that has, unfortunately,

become ubiquitous around the globe. A practice that disregards universal human rights, a

practice that brings shame to the country which exercises it, a practice that is so shameful

it is only enforced behind closed doors. Torture is, beyond a shadow of a doubt,

unnecessary to the extraction of foreign intelligence. Torture should never be employed

by countries in order to obtain information from a POW because it is inhumane,

unreliable and a direct denial of international human rights.

The use of torture is degrading and inhuman, both physically and psychologically.

“Torture as defined by law is severe pain or discomfort” (Masci 2). Though this

definition was not drafted until 1984 at the Geneva Convention, torture has been

practiced for centuries. In Ancient Rome, more than a thousand years before the Geneva

Convention took place, common forms of torture included crucifixion, public whippings,

burnings and being hung with chains. Many forms of torture used today, including rape

and starvation, were customary in the Ancient Roman civilization. Physically speaking,

“international human rights groups have cataloged […] methods used in the torture

chambers of Iraq” which include, but are not limited to, “electric shock, burning with hot

irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues and

rape” (2). However, this discomfort is not reserved to a physical level. Though all of

these forms of torture are atrocious, the abuse ascends all new heights on a psychological
 Staples 2

level. The majority of “torturers […] play mental games with their prisoners.”

Psychological components often include “lying, shame, humiliation and threats.” Not

only do torturers wish to “hurt” their prisoners, but they strive to “reduce” the prisoner,

“to have power over” the captive (2). Yet, despite how heinous these crimes are, “[…]

the State Department’s annual human rights report” chronicles “the continuing state-

sanctioned use of torture in more than 100 countries on five continents” (1).

The United States’ use of torture not only draws criticism from other nations, but

also demeans the U.S.’s power to influence other countries against war crimes. Though

the United States prides itself on the Constitution used to govern the nation, the U.S. has

openly disregarded its own Bill of Rights in instances concerning the right to a fair trial,

which Amnesty International claims is a basic human right. To justify its cause, the

United States “began producing memorandums” which allowed the country to use torture

after September 11, 2001. “The Justice Department,” under Attorney General John

Ashcroft at that time, “gave an extremely narrow definition of torture: producing pain

equivalent to that from serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of

bodily function, or even death” (Lewis 13). By altering the international definition of

torture, the United States kept itself clean of criticism while reserving the use of torture to

extract information from prisoners. “Salim Ahmed Hamdan,” who “served as driver”

and, at times “bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden” was denied “prisoner-of-war status

without a prior hearing” (Jost 2). The right to due process is brushed under the rug as

haphazardly as spilt bread crumbs when such a denial comes as an advantage to the

United States. Such is the case in Julius Caesar. Two tribunes, Marullus and Flavius, are

“put to silence” for simply “pulling scarfs” from “Caesar’s images” (Shakespeare 705).
 Staples 3

Either put to death or banished from Rome, it is assumed that a judgment is frivolously

passed on the two tribunes. In another case, “Hamed Ahmed,” a “Spanish Muslim” who

was only “suspected,” not convicted, of being an “al Qaeda terrorist,” was held for “two

years in custody” at “Guantanamo Bay” without being given any Miranda Rights (Jost 2).

Two years of a man’s life were stolen from him – twenty-four months without basic

human rights, 104 weeks devoid of family and friends, 730 days of unjust imprisonment.

Two years which cannot be returned as easily as they were stolen. In all of these cases,

the time does not fit the crime, as the proverb goes. Regardless of the hypocrisy of such

situations, cases such as these two also draw an abundant amount of international

objection. The United States “administration has drawn waves of criticism for policies”

which “amount to defiance of or contempt for international law, including the decision to

deny POW status to detainees of Guantanamo Bay” (2). Along with global criticism,

these impetuous actions create “a greater threat of terrorism against the United States”

(Holtzman 1). Despite the fact that “torture” is “an affront to legal and civilized norms of

behavior” (Masci 1), “Human Rights Watch” reported that “at least 9 detainees are known

to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan,” four of these were “murder or

manslaughter” (“Torture” 1). Although many argued that the use of torture was necessary

after the attacks of September 11, “torture is a war crime, a crime against humanity, and

an international crime in itself” (1). It should never be acceptable to commit an

international crime, regardless of the context. If “the prohibition on torture is” ever

“suspended,” “even in times of public emergency,” the gateway for ambiguity is opened

for international debate (1).

 Staples 4

Beyond all other reasoning, torture should be terminated for one reason alone: the

unreliable and inconstant manner of torture is cause enough to abandon the practice of it.

Using torture as a solution to a problem is like putting out a fire with wooden logs. When

being tortured, the initial human reaction is to cease receiving pain as quickly as possible.

“The information” received “from people in pain is not credible.” Almost all “people

will say anything just to make the pain stop” (Masci1). Moreover, the people who are

most aligned with a cause are less likely to be persuaded to relinquish their knowledge.

Traditional “torture is least effective against” those who hold “the most important

information” such as “resistance or opposition leaders and true believers.” Those with

“vital information just happen to be the people most likely to be steeled to torture” (2).

A monstrous practice like torture – a barbaric, truculent, uncouth practice – is not

one that can be exterminated overnight. Instead, the process to find better, more humane

ways to extract information from captives and groups of people will be a slow one.

However, as the saying goes, Rome was not built in a day. The answer to exterminating

the practice of torture lies in understanding. When the understanding that torture is not

the solution but actually the problem, advancements can be made to not only find better

negotiating tactics, but also to terminate torture on the whole.