Ethics of Torture

Torture is generally regarded as inherently wrong. Unlike terrorism, which can be arguably justified on some levels, it is difficult to justify the deliberate destruction of any person's human integrity. While some situations, such as the "ticking bomb scenario," in which a terrorist definitively possesses vital information, can legitimize to a certain extent the use of infotorture, the torture associated with the "Battle of Algiers" seems more arbitrary. Colonel Mathieu's argument claims that "succumb

Colonel Mathieu justification diverts from the act of torture itself, which is inherently wrong. The ticking bomb scenario is used in defense of torture because it is essentially an argument of self defense. This argument is applicable because the person being tortured, the tortured, is directly responsible for the act of terrorism the person torturing, the torturer, is trying to prevent. In order for this justification to work, there must be a clear link between the tortured and responsibility for the act of terrorism. Thus, the torture of a person who has information regarding this act of terrorism, but is not actually responsible for it, cannot be justified as self defense. The "Battle of Algiers" involves acts of torture that appear to be applied at random. At one point in the movie, the French soldiers seize a man because he is merely tall, clearly demonstrating an indifference on the part of the French for torturing actual terrorists. There is no attempt made to establish a connection between the tortured and the terrorist acts the French army are working to prevent. Trinquier even says in his La Guerre Moderne that "The idea of "hopeless chaos" introduced by Mathieu is interesting, as it implies that mechanisms of social control, including torture, take precedence over human rights in certain situations. The Algerian terrorism threatened the very existence of the French colony, and Mathieu makes the claim that torture in this instance is legitimate because it works to preserve this society. The preservation of a community as a whole becomes more important than an individual's self regarding personal rights.

Ignatieff claims that "no state wants to be seen as torturing suspects, but all states want to be able to extract information to protect their citizens" (Ignatieff 19). Although it is unfortunate that the French must ignore human considerations, the Colonel claims that in doing so, they avoid the "hopeless chaos" of their current terrorist state. It becomes difficult to say that Mathieu should have allowed the terrorism to exist because he could not violate individual rights. But it is harder to say that individuals must sacrifice their personal rights if they have had no part in the terrorism. A problem with his argument is that, again, he works arbitrarily against the Algerians and lumps them together into an "us versus them" mentality. Although he works out of a fear for "hopeless chaos," he does not concentrate his power against the specific terrorists who are responsible, but rather, on anyone who could, or could not, be associated with terrorist actions. Yet, similar to Walzer's idea of supreme emergency, Mathieu's defense claims that in certain instances is necessary to harm non combatants in order to preserve society. Yet, it is important to distinguish between general terrorism and torture.

Torture can be a specific form of terrorism, but is generally thought to have a more adverse affect on its victims. Its only aims are to destroy a person's human integrity, and it focuses on degradation and pain. While terrorism also tends to have lasting effects on its victims it does not have the same intentions are torture, and acts of terrorism are generally not centered on humiliation and agony. Torture seems to be a more deliberate act of cruelty, seeming especially undeserving if the tortured is innocent of any terrorist acts themselves. Acts of terrorism, though controversial, are officially condoned by certain countries, such as the bombing of Berlin by Britain during the second world war. Yet, 139 countries have ratified The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Worden 79). This is not to say that all nations follow this official decree, but unlike terrorism which in those cases of supreme emergency are recognized and defended by the government, governmental torture is generally hidden from the public.

Torture is officially shunned by the majority of governments. As a western country of the first world, France publicly denounces the use of torture. But, as is evident, these words are empty when torture is hidden behind the notion of tough interrogation techniques. Roth claims that "the line between these concepts is not well defined" (Roth xiii), and interrogation often leads to torture. Yet, this line is not even necessary when the French were given "absolute authority to carry out the war as they saw fit, without judicial or political interference" (Robin 48). This removal from the government allows the French to engage in forms of torture without interference. The French government essentially ignored the torture, focusing only on the results. This indifference for violating human rights in order to obtain desirable information is continually perpetuated by first world countries, who officially denounce torture, but often engage in it behind the scenes. Roth argues that the United States "disdain for so fundamental a principle has done enormous damage to the global system for protecting human rights" (Roth 185). Colonel Mathieu's justifications not only undermine any consideration for human rights, particularly as the tortured are not necessarily terrorists, but continue to perpetuate a global acceptance for both torture and indifference.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, but there must be some sort of limit to what measures can be taken. There cannot be a simple blank check of justification granted to nations claiming states of supreme emergency. There exist some acts that are so inherently wrong that they cannot ever be justifiable. A person who is not an established terrorist still possesses self regarding rights, and to torture such a person arbitrarily for information is without a doubt wrong. The question of torture is in itself controversial, as some instances of such extreme humiliation and pain are difficult to justify even if the tortured is clearly responsible for a terrorist act, but to inflict such acts on a person who is not patently responsible for an act cannot ever be justified. Even the preservation of a society does not take precedence over basic human consideration. It is important to remember the line between torture and terrorism, while terrorism may be debatably acceptable, torture is never officially accepted. A society cannot build its existence on the use of torture because it will only perpetuate a disregard for human rights and an acceptance for torture. Mathieu's ideas are dangerous because they perpetuate a behind the scenes acceptance for any means, as long as they produce a significant ends.