Arguments Against Torture

What are the rules?

The Convention against Torture states more precisely the rights and duties set forth in Articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Very clearly the Convention declares the moral presumption that torture is wrong, that governments have a duty to prevent it, and that there are to be no exceptions made to this moral and legal duty.

The United States has incorporated this presumption into its domestic laws and also into the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Articles 77-134).  The McCain amendment to the defense spending bill, which was passed at the end of 2005, clearly prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment” of anyone in U. S. government custody anywhere in the world.  This amendment also requires that procedures in the Army Field Manual be followed in interrogating prisoners.

Consequential Reasoning

It would seem that nothing could be clearer than the moral and legal presumption not to torture.  Yet, when President George W. Bush signed the bill that included the McCain amendment, he attached a signing statement affirming his right, as Commander in Chief, to bypass the law if he felt enforcing the prohibition against torture would jeopardize national security.

This statement by the President plus the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the U. S. prison at Guantánamo Bay are evidence that consequence arguments are being used to try to justify torture.  There are, however, strong consequence arguments against the use of torture.

Burton J. Lee III, a doctor in the Army Medical Corps who served as physician to President George H. W. Bush, writes: “The military ethics that I know absolutely prohibit anything resembling torture….Discipline and order in the military ranks depend to a large extend on compliance with the prohibition of torture….In addition, military leaders have long been aware that torture inflicts lasting damage on both the victim and the torturer.  The systematic infliction of torture engenders deep hatred and hostility that transcends generations.  And it perverts the role of medical personnel from healers to instruments of abuse.”

Lee argues that: “reports of torture by U. S. forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees.  These new guidelines distort traditional ethical rules beyond recognition to serve the interests of interrogators, not doctors and detainees.”

Character Argument

To these consequence arguments, Lee adds an appeal to character: “Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength.  It does not show understanding, power or magnanimity.  It is not leadership.  It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.”

With hope . . . Bob Traer