I am truly shocked by what I read in the Dec.6, 2005 issue of the Tufts Daily. Mr. Randall in his piece, "In Defense of Torture," puts forward arguments that one can only recognize as ignorant, misinformed and dangerous. As much as Mr. Randall is entitled to his opinion, I think it is important not to leave some of his grossly erroneous and inane statements unaddressed.
The first thing that I would like to point out to Mr. Randall is that human beings actually have rights that are immutable -- those are called fundamental human rights. I urge you to read the text of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The declaration was ratified by the U.S. Congress a mere 60 years ago, and it applies to every single human being regardless of "race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
One does not forfeit their fundamental human rights, even when violating U.S. law. In terms of legislation prohibiting the use of torture, there have been a number of internationally drawn up conventions -- that the United States, believe it or not, have ratified -- which prohibit, and seek to abolish the use of torture in all its forms. An example is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. Moreover, there are certain norms in international law that fall under the jus cogens category. This means that they apply to all subjects of international law, regardless of the status of ratification of treaties or conventions. The prohibition of torture falls under that category. This type of peremptory norm exists in the case of torture, slavery and genocide. Indeed, it seems that the international community -- including the United States -- recognizes that torture, in all its forms, is perfectly indefensible, whether morally or legally.
I will not bother to address the ignorant comments made about the forms of torture. For our purposes, I will simply assume that Mr. Randall has no knowledge whatsoever about what exactly constitutes torture. If he wanted to get a small glimpse into the horror, he might simply refer to the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib.
Our national security strategy cannot rely on dehumanizing others. Contrarily to what Mr. Randall asserts, America cannot preserve its security by whatever means necessary. While torture might be efficient in obtaining information, it is even more efficient in reinforcing hatred towards those who perpetrate it. Not only does this kind of position reinforce pre-existing hatred, but this is precisely the platform used by extremists use to recruit.
I insist -- we cannot accept torture. Even as part of a strategy of national security, it is fundamentally unacceptable. While I am not suggesting that prisoners should not be suggested to interrogation, I believe that this can be achieved without stooping to the same level of dehumanization and complete disregard for human rights at which terrorists and extremists operate. If we don't abide by a minimum standard of respect for human life, then we surely cannot expect others to do so. If the use of torture is appropriate for our national security strategy, than surely it is an appropriate strategy for others as well. The world is watching. If we do not uphold fundamental values -- including respect for human rights and prisoner rights -- then we are implicitly allowing that same attitude from others.
