Torture

The history of torture goes back to a long time ago. It can be considered one of the most effective ways in extracting information from anyone. As time progresses, torture is considered a cruel and uncivilized way to acquire information, even in the context of terrorists and criminals. But when the situation demands it, is it justifiable to perform it?

The issue of torture becomes apparent in the interrogation of al-Qaeda operatives. Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002. Among some notable techniques authorised are the ‘cold cell’ where prisoners are doused with cold water in a cell kept at 50 degrees and the infamous ‘water boarding’ where prisoners are tied head down on an inclined board and poured with water. Fear of drowning soon kicks in followed with instant pleas for the treatment to stop. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. There is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. Torture is considered bad interrogation, if it is bad enough, you can make people confess to anything at all. As is the case of Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, where he made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say that he did not intentionally misinform investigators, but instead wanted to please them.

However, in such conditions, there is one argument in favour of their use: time. In the early days of al-Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion. Knowledge could save many more lives when used and applied properly and as such, can be considered morally right.