by Cristina Glakas

IS TORTURE RIGHT? People think torture is morally wrong. However, when the question is whether torture is acceptable to protect national security, there is a much larger debate. A current example of the debate on torture is whether the Central Intelligence Agency engaged in torture after 9/11. However, even if the CIA’s enhanced interrogation is considered torture, in times of extreme fear, the necessity of self-defense provides justification for its use. The aftermath of 9/11 demonstrates such emergency circumstances when there was great fear of more attacks aimed at the United States and no luxury of time to act; therefore, the enhanced interrogation methods were necessary.

In the Senate Intelligence Committee’s majority report on CIA detention and interrogation of terrorists after 9/11, the authors claim that the interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence. This assertion is false. Former CIA Directors and Deputy Directors revealed three ways in which the interrogation program was effective in obtaining vital intelligence. Information obtained led to (1) the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, (2) the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks and (3) additional knowledge about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed the approaches on how best to attack it. Former CIA directors state that without the interrogation program, they would not have obtained the information from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the 9/11 mastermind.

The report also claims the CIA went beyond the interrogation techniques authorized by the Justice Department. This assertion is false. The CIA sought guidance and reaffirmation of the program from senior administration policy makers at least four times. There was extensive consultation with the National Security Adviser, Deputy National Security Adviser, White House Counsel, and Justice Department throughout the process to ensure the interrogations were legal. CIA leaders verified with the Justice Department that the program did not violate U.S. policy, law, and treaty obligations.

The memo supporting the legality of enhanced interrogation stated only prolonged mental harm or serious physical injury, such as organ failure or death, violated the Geneva Convention’s ban on torture. Waterboarding was considered aggressive interrogation, but not torture. According to Marc Thiessen, of the tens of thousands of individuals captured since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, only about 30 have been subjected to enhanced interrogation of any kind, and just three underwent waterboarding; it was a technique used sparingly.

Some critics say other methods, such as relationship building, could have been used. However, the former CIA directors and deputies claim the detention and interrogation programs were designed at a time when relationship building and other techniques were not working.

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes criticizes confessions obtained under torture since humans are vulnerable to pain which motivates providing any information, true or false. However, since torture sometimes does and sometimes does not result in intelligence, it is unreasonable to rule out torture in all cases.

Human rights activist Juan Mendez claims the Senate’s report was an important contribution because it is an in-depth study, well-researched, and exposed the truth. This assertion is false. The investigation was not bipartisan (only Democrats took part in the investigation), information was cherry-picked from millions of CIA documents, and no witnesses, even the former CIA directors, were interviewed. Given the lack of bipartisanship and testimony, the report is biased and flawed.

I agree with Griffith University professor Alex Bellamy’s claim that the prohibition on torture should be maintained, but that in exceptional circumstances desperate necessity may dictate, though not excuse, its use. The enhanced interrogation used by the CIA after 9/11 is an example of an exceptional circumstance. Torture is not excusable, but is justifiable. Bellamy also asks: “Given the threat that terrorists pose to innocent lives, are governments not obliged to do whatever they can to protect their citizens?” Leaders must realize it may be better inflicting pain on one guilty person than putting hundreds or thousands of innocent people at risk of potential terrorist atrocities.

U-M senior Cristina Glakas is from Potomac, Maryland and expects to graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in International Studies in 2015.