Dbq On The Usefulness Of Torture

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Torture is beginning to be seen as ineffective because prisoners have been known to produce false information to evade torturers. In fact, Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, reported, "Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse." The United States is not benefiting from the use of torture during the War on Terror. The United States is suffering from its use of torture. David Cole of The New York Review, wrote, "The abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have become international embarrassments for the United States, and by many accounts have helped to recruit young people to join Al QaedaÐ'...our coercive and inhumane interrogation tactics have effectively granted many of the prisoners immunity from trial. Because the evidence we might use against them is tainted by their mistreatment, trials would likely turn into occasions for exposing the United States' brutal interrogation tactics." In contrast, there have been cases of torture that have been effective, such as the case of child soldiers. Tactics of forcing children to fight in armies have included kidnapping children and injecting children with drugs.

The United States government claims that one reason for the War on Terror is to protect American lives by preventing terrorist attacks such as the attack that occurred on September 11, 2001. Torture has also been regarded as necessary in order to save the lives of citizens. Charles Krauthammer, contributing editor of the Weekly Standard, wrote, "But elected leaders, responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, have the obligation to tolerate their own sleepless nights by doing what is necessary and only what is necessary, nothing more to get information and prevent mass murder." However, some argue that torture is morally wrong. Several say that torture is wrong because the victim is at the mercy of the torturer, and the torturer is inhumane towards the victim. Torture is also prohibited in the Third Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Third Geneva Convention states that "Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times Ð'...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."(Article 13). In addition, it states, "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Article 17). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." (Article 5).

Torture has also been compared to civil disobedience in the way that even though it does not comply with the law (Third Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but that it is done with the best interests of the people of a country. However, after the war or the situation is over, and citizens are safe, the torturers must be punished