Torture and the CIA

Solution Preview

Truth, Torture and the American Way: The History

When attempting to argue for or against the use of torture, two different viewpoints are often championed in regard to ethical principles and torture. The first viewpoint is that torture is inherently wrong and should never be used against humans regardless of the scenario. The other view is that torture is only acceptable under the notion of utilitarianism wherein the ends justify the means in dire circumstances. Those who advocate for the use of torture often cite the "ticking bomb" scenario wherein the government is privy of an eminent terroristic attack and has apprehended one of the suspects who has information of where and when the attack will occur. This scenario placates that it would be moral to use torture against this one individual to prevent countless other lives from being lost or severely injured.

The ethical question is whether it is better to sacrifice one person intent on committing mass murder to prevent the murder of many. Those who support the use of torture believe that it is better to torture the person that is intent upon killing many innocent civilians to elicit the information necessary to prevent these innocent people from being murdered. The question then is asked as to whether the ticking bomb scenario is plausible or realistic, which is the question posed by those who are against the use of torture. They view this as a cop-out and a utopian fantasy that is predicated in the flawed logic of those who advocate for torture. The reality is that many instances have conceivably occurred wherein decisions needed to be made about whether or not torture would be used to prevent attacks against America according to some researchers.

The reality of the scenario is that any President in this situation wherein they had credible knowledge that an imminent attack against the United States could be prevented if a suspect with this knowledge were subjected to torture, would most likely give the green light for the torture to prevent an attack against the United States. One example that is relevant to this moral and ethical issue is that of the alleged terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Mohammed was a ring leader in the 9/11 attacks and reputedly a mastermind of the attack that occurred in 2001. Because of this belief that he was the mastermind behind the attacks, it was believed that he was of high intelligence value, and if he were caught it would be imperative to ensure that actionable information was obtained from him. When he was captured, the CIA and American military sought to obtain information about the inner workings of al-Qaeda, the finances of the group, and the future attacks that were planned by the group. After he was captured in 2003, it was determined that he would have to give up information that he had or face torture techniques that had long been used by the C.I.A.
Initially Mohammed was not interrogated using methods that are considered torture under international agreements that the U.S. has signed with the international community. After he made statements alluding to imminent attacks such as telling interrogators that soon they would know what would happen next, the interrogators engaged in torture. Some of the methods employed for the torture were placing Mohammed in solitary confinement naked for several weeks, he was kept shackled, isolated, and deprived of sleep for up to seven and a half days at a time. He was also water-boarded 183 times.

The question of whether it was moral to do ...