Yale professors debate the use of torture

If Abdul Hakim Murad hadn't talked, an attack like the one of Sept. 11 might have come six years earlier. If he hadn't told Philippine intelligence agents in 1995 about Osama bin Laden's Bojinka—which means "loud bang" in Arabic—terrorists might have succeeded in bombing 11 American planes, using another to destroy CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and assassinating the Pope.

COURTESY BOSTON U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A fax depicting Liban Hussein, who is wanted for alleged financial dealings with Osama Bin Laden.

Fortunately for the intended victims, Murad provided lifesaving information that allowed authorities to intervene and prevent those plans from being carried out.

Unfortunately, he did not provide that information willingly. According to published accounts, Murad's captors responded to his reticence and taunts with torture, nearly beating him to death and breaking all his ribs.

Faced with the fear surrounding September's bombings, America is beginning to weigh its distaste with such torture against the cold reality that it may save innocent lives. Recently, members of the mainstream media have justified once unthinkable torture methods as a means of getting information.

In the Nov. 5 issue of Newsweek, liberal columnist Jonathan Alter declared it was "time to think about torture." "We need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism," he wrote. He also advocated the use of so-called "truth serum" (see sidebar).

Calls for some form of torture have bridged the usual political divide. On CNN's Crossfire, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson discussed the justification of using torture. "Under certain circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils," he said. "Because some evils are pretty evil."

The essential question America faces is whether Carlson's rationale is fair. Should the U.S. make the trade—at least in theory—of torturing one person to save 1,000 innocent lives? What about torturing five people to save 500?

As the country faces this quandary, the Herald spoke to professors who are experts in the fields of law, ethics, and international relations for guidance.

IN GENERAL, YALE PROFESSORS AGREED TORTURE IS a messy and dangerous proposition. On the most basic level, several professors raised practical questions about the practice of torture; they doubted that it is a reliable means of gathering intelligence.

"It often yields inaccurate information," said Ruth Wedgewood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins currently on sabbatical. "The torturee will say anything to get rid of torturers."

Charles Hill, a Yale lecturer in international studies, agreed. "I think, under torture, people will tell you anything," he said.

Other professors questioned the morality of torture. Mathias Risse, who teaches Introduction to Ethics, conceded that it is tempting to endorse torture when considering hypothetical scenarios such as the torture of one terrorist to save thousands of lives. But reality, he argued, is much more complicated.

"One condition which must apply [before employing torture] is that you must be reasonably certain you're doing [it] to the right person," he said, adding that even under perfect circumstances, the practice remains problematic.

John E. Smith, a philosophy professor who teaches a course called Pragmatism, was more strident. "[Torture] should never be used because human beings are involved," he said.

TORTURE ALSO RAISES MANY COMPLICATED ISSUES of domestic and international law, as well as foreign relations concerns.

Despite President Bush's war on terror, suspected terrorists detained in America are probably not prisoners of war in the technical sense, Wedgewood said. They are thus protected by the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Even if terrorists are captured overseas, such as in the current military campaign against Afghanistan, Wedgewood said that torture is "not permitted under human rights law or the law of war or armed conflict."

Wedgewood warned that if the U.S. wants its prisoners of war to receive fair treatment from other countries, it must treat captured combatants humanely. Hill concurred, citing the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as legal restrictions on the use of torture.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the United Nations in 1948, guarantees, in part, that "no one shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." The Geneva Convention provides for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. Article Three prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture."

There have also been suggestions, such as one made by columnist Alter, that we turn candidates for torture over to "our less squeamish allies" to accomplish the goal of obtaining information without having to do it ourselves. Wedgewood does not see this as a viable alternative.

"Under the law, you can't do indirectly what you can't do directly," she said, explaining that deporting prisoners with the knowledge that they will be tortured—and especially with the intent that they should be—is no more acceptable than performing the torture directly.

SEVERAL PROFESSORS SAID THAT TO ACCEPT TOR-
ture would be to reject fundamental American values.

"We don't need [law] in order to make the decision [whether to employ torture]," Hill said. "The rest of the world would think we had lost what it was that makes America America." He noted that although it often appears that the rest of the world resents the U.S. for various reasons, many people still look to this country to uphold basic human rights and freedoms.

"It would go against so much that this country has always been about," Risse said.

Still, torture remains on the national agenda, especially as fear of more attacks continues to grow. In a complicated war, ideas about what should and shouldn't be done begin to get blurred.

"It would be a mistake to see this war as about oil or... simply power realities," said Dwight Professor of Philosophy and Christian Ethics Gene Outka, who teaches a course called Directed Readings in Ethics and Human Rights. He cited conflicting religious beliefs as one of the many complicating factors in the current hostilities. "To prevent a maniac from destroying the world, you might ignore some things, including [torture]."

Back to News...