What torture?

From what I have read, there is still debate concerning whether "torture" is a useful or necessary tool in our war on terror. I have placed quotation marks around the word "torture" because it is a subject of debate. Methods that some consider torture are embraced by others as legitimate interrogation techniques. The higher the stakes, the more blurred the line becomes. It has been argued that the nation's security is at stake and so aggressive interrogation, if not torture, is warranted. While torture for torture's sake has often occurred, it has seldom reached the scale of torture in behalf of a grand or noble cause such as the salvation of the soul or the security of the state.

The word "torture" has been parsed and debated. The presence or lack of of physical disability or maiming, the length and degree of pain inflicted, the degree of psychological stress applied, the extent of horror threatened, all weigh in the debate over what constitutes torture. I would suggest that the measure of torture be whether we would tolerate such methods to be used against our soldiers and citizens. If we would not, we should reassess our use of those methods.

The necessity of torture has often been argued in cases where the stakes are high. Soviet torture of peasants suspected of hoarding grain was claimed necessary to prevent starvation. Torture of heretics was claimed necessary for the salvation of their souls. Torture of prisoners has often been claimed necessary to prevent an outrage or calamity from occurring. Threats to the security of the state or realm have often fallen into this category, as well as the fear of imminent attack. It is unclear how effective torture has been in these instances since those being tortured are often inclined to spill their guts, so to speak, to satisfy their tormentor, whether their confession is truthful or not.

What is clear is that the diminution of torture over time, with some notable exceptions, indicates that its usefulness as a method or instrument of gathering information and preserving public order and safety has fallen into disfavor. Perhaps this is in part due to the phenomenon that the fear of torture is often more effective than the torture itself. So why torture? In order to instill the fear of torture, some have to be tortured so as to demonstrate the resolve of the interrogators. In this case, those tortured are not tormented for the sake of information, but to intimidate other prisoners and potential trouble makers into compliance. This is a motive that civilized people ought to find reprehensible.

Torture, as a practice, is evidence of cruelty and sadism more often than resolve. Those who are intrigued, rather than appalled, by accounts of torture are the ones likely to torture pets and become serial killers; or aspire to work for the CIA. Those who tolerate torture display a numbness toward humanity troubling for its absence of compassion. Those who support torture exhibit a callous indifference and a cold cruelty out of step with civilization.

It is worth noting that torture of suspects is just that, torture of suspects. We are not just torturing terrorists, but those only suspected of being terrorists. Presumably, the determination of whether they are terrorists or not is only made after they are tortured. I fear that if I was tortured, I might even confess to being a terrorist.