Name: Shella Mae H.

Pormento

Torture is a helpful, effective interrogation instrument for the most serious crimes

Does Torture Works?

Does interrogational torture effective in extracting information for the most serious

crime? Is it acceptable to torture suspects to mitigate terrorist attacks? A question such as these

sounds reasonable. If violence is important, why not ask if it serves its purpose? The answer to

the question also indicates that further investigation has been invited into what to do next

whether to reject the process, or to allow its use, or to review the necessary circumstances.

But the apparent logic of the question is misleading. It does not present an opening, but it

sorts to hindrance in attaining a productive investigation into torture. According to Shue (2016)

that this produces unrealistic debate, based on unrealistic beliefs. Moreover, Adam (2016) points

out that it only distorts our overall understanding of the problem that eventually hides the

rational reality inherent to the current practice of torture.

Bernstein (2015) defines torture as one of the cruelest declarations of dominance and

power over the other. Torture does not only rob the victim’s bodily freedom and integrity but

also deprives his/her control of his memory, morality, and social bonds. All victims of torture

have been deprived of their right to keep a secret. The goal of torturing is to coerce the victim to

betray his/her comrades thus, forcing them to renounce their self-respect (Barns, 2017).
 From our modern perspective, it is not surprising that the cruelty of torture played no role

in the early stages of the debate. By Philippine legal and ethical standards, the value of torture as

an effective way of extracting relevant information in preventing a terrorist attack is

unconstitutional. Thus, torture is to be firmly opposed based on human rights and the discussion

of its potential utility must not and cannot begin.

In conclusion, torture should not be used to extract information in mitigating the potential

terrorist attack. Instead, the rights of the suspect would be better protected following the warrant

requirement. The suspect must be granted immunity and informed that he/she is obliged to

testify, and threatened with imprisonment if he/she refuses to do so. The suspect must be given

the option of proving the given requested information. Furthermore, if the warrant requirement

will be properly enforced, it would probably reduce the frequency, severity, and duration of

torture. I do believe that the goal of the warrant requirement is to simply impose an additional

level of reviewing such events.

Whether this is a speculation or not, the relationship between pain and oppression and

truth and credibility on the other seems to have been maintained in "Western" or even human

thought. Special credentials are claimed with voluntary pain in which can be considered as

evidence of heroic torture. Therefore, there should be a fear that as long as men continue to

believe that truth can be achieved through pain, even when it is illegal and condemned, it will

never be eradicated from this world.

References:

Shue, H. (2016). Fighting hurt: rule and exception in torture and war. Oxford University Press.

Adams, A. (2016). Political torture in popular culture: The role of representations in the post-

9/11 torture debate. Routledge.

Bernstein, J. M. (2015). Torture and dignity: An essay on moral injury. University of Chicago

Press.

Barnes, J. (2017). A genealogy of the torture taboo. Taylor & Francis.