You Decide

…that being known as a nation that tortures diminishes our standing in the world?

Consider the story of Hayder Sabbar Abd, a Shiite Muslim and father of five who was arrested in Iraq in June 2003.

After being held in various detention facilities, Abd eventually landed at Abu Ghraib prison, where, he says, for roughly 10 nights in November, guards hooded and beat him. Abd contends that the guards used a knife to strip him of his clothes. He says he was forced to pile on top of other naked prisoners, simulate oral sex and masturbate while looking at one of the female guards.

“She was laughing, and she put her hands on her breasts,” Abd told New York Times reporter Ian Fisher. “I told them that I couldn’t, so they beat me in the stomach, and I fell to the ground. The translator said, ‘Do it! Do it! It’s better than being beaten.’ I said, ‘How can I do it?’ So I put my hand on my penis, just pretending.”

Abd says that he and his fellow prisoners were never questioned or interrogated. Rather, they were tortured, humiliated and, as is now well known, photographed.
Those photographs have become a public-relations disaster for the United States. The historic image of a country founded on personal liberty and the equality of men must now compete with the equally potent image of the United States as an imperialist nation whose interests are advanced by sadists.

Episodes like the Abu Ghraib scandal only undermine the country’s moral authority: No longer can the United States be taken seriously when it demands other countries cease torturing political prisoners. What’s more, now that it’s widely known that U.S. forces have engaged in torture, what’s to stop U.S. enemies from torturing captured U.S. troops?

As Abd told the Times: “I am asking: Is that democracy? Is that freedom?”

…the ticking time bomb scenario?

Imagine: A known terrorist, now in custody, gloats that he has planted a dirty bomb in the heart of San Francisco. The bomb, which he says contains radioactive material and will level several city blocks before commencing its decades-long cancerous assault, is sure to kill or maim thousands. During interrogation, the terrorist refuses to give any actionable intelligence. There’s still time to prevent this catastrophe, but only if he talks.

What do you do?

Given the potential enormity of human suffering he is about to inflict, wouldn't investigators be justified in torturing this one, despicable man? Wouldn’t it be immoral not to torture this man?

Certainly, the above-outlined scenario is a bit far-fetched. Nonetheless, the principle establishes the precedent, and given lengthy timeframes over which many terrorist plots unfold, the same reasoning could apply to terrorists caught in the midst of planning an attack. After all, the proverbial bomb was ticking in the months leading up to 9/11; it would be foolhardy to think another is not ticking today.

Further, as Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, has argued, no matter how smart our bombs, modern warfare necessarily includes a certain amount of collateral damage—a euphemism for civilians wounded or killed during an offensive. Hateful, yes, but countries engage in wars knowing full well that there will be unintended casualties; they are seen as a reasonable sacrifice for a greater good.

Some of these innocents will be killed. Plenty more will be blinded, crippled, burned or worse. Condemned, as it were, to a life of torturous pain and disfigurement. We know this going in. Isn’t it hypocritical, then, to be squeamish about aggressively questioning a terrorist in the hope of preventing an imminent attack?

What if by torturing this terrorist we were able to prevent the pain and suffering of even one innocent child? Wouldn’t that be worth it?