The Californian <![CDATA[The Californian]]> http://my.hsj.org/Portals/2/logos/__TFMF_o1rem245dlztjuuk1gt2o4ux_84490547-5cc3-4f2d-b4fd-15dda5de530b_0___Selected.jpg en-us Copyright 2008 - All Rights Reserved. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:43:16 GMT 15 <![CDATA[Torture justified in times of war]]> By Alyssa Briggs

courtesy of forusa
Some inmates at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to various types of torture to try to gather information.

President Obama’s decisions to ban torture and to release the Bush administration’s torture memos have caused controversy.  In spite of its moral concerns, however, torture is vital to war and should not be banned. Proponents of banning torture argue that it is immoral, while opponents believe banning torture causes a security threat. The full scope of banning torture cannot be addressed in merely arguing the morality of torture. Rather, it should be viewed in its context as a tool most often used by our government during war.  Torture used to gain pertinent information should be allowed. The information gained is worth it if it helps to shorten a war. Torture is the lesser of two evils when compared to lengthening a war. It is hard to end a war without knowing where to strike. It is hard to know where to strike without information. Torture of prisoners often helps gain that information. Such intelligence is gathered in reconnaissance missions. What are the odds that even the most highly trained specialists will consistently gain the information they need by eavesdropping? The most important secrets are the ones best protected. It is hard to imagine terrorists planning in a room with a conveniently located spy hole. People across the nation have bumper stickers reading “Support Our Troops.”  American Army Reserve Sgt. Casey Christensen said to the Washington Post, “I talk to a lot of the guys, and it’s hard for us to adapt. The noises scare us. The nightmares we have problems with. We have anger issues.” Truly supporting our troops is minimizing the amount of time they spend fighting. Yes, the act of torture is wrong. So is killing. The difference is that people can survive torture. It is impossible, however, to survive being killed. What is war if it is not killing people?  No matter how noble our intentions, war inevitably brings death. Torture helps gain the information required to end a war. President Obama defended his decision by saying, “What makes the United States special and what makes you special is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it’s expedient to do so. So yes, you’ve got a harder job and so do I.” It is difficult to uphold ideals. It is truly challenging to look beneath the surface of an act and determine through its effects the true morality. Banning torture is not a black and white issue.  Torture must be considered in its full context as an instrument to gain intelligence. So long as that intelligence brings American troops home before they have to deal with more than nightmares and anger issues, torture is perfectly acceptable. Banning torture is undeniably an act based on a foundation of ideals. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  ]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:04:41 GMT