The Torturer's Dilemma: Analyzing the Logic of Torture for Information
The Torturer's Dilemma: Analyzing the Logic of Torture for Information
The Torturer's Dilemma: Analyzing the Logic of Torture for Information
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
characterization by method. <strong>Torture</strong>, in my definition, is <strong>the</strong> deliberate infliction <strong>of</strong> pain on an<br />
individual or set <strong>of</strong> individuals entirely at <strong>the</strong> aggressor's mercy. <strong>The</strong>re are two main parts to this<br />
definition. Firstly, torture is deliberate: if <strong>the</strong> pain is caused accidentally or unknowingly, <strong>the</strong>n it may<br />
certainly count as abuse but cannot be torture. Secondly, and crucially, <strong>the</strong> victim <strong>of</strong> torture has no<br />
power to prevent herself from suffering <strong>the</strong> infliction <strong>of</strong> pain – that is, even if <strong>the</strong> captive cooperates,<br />
<strong>the</strong> decision to inflict pain resides in <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> authority alone. <strong>Torture</strong> can <strong>the</strong>n be subdivided<br />
according to <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>for</strong> which torture is employed: it might be used inter alia to en<strong>for</strong>ce<br />
obedience, to generate confessions, to demonstrate <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state or to ga<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation, or<br />
simply <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sadistic exercise <strong>of</strong> power over ano<strong>the</strong>r. This dissertation will focus on torture <strong>for</strong><br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
By defining torture in this fashion, and by specifying torture <strong>for</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation as <strong>the</strong> object <strong>of</strong><br />
inquiry, we are able to obviate <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> how much pain is tantamount to torture, as well as which<br />
methods <strong>of</strong> producing said pain are counted. Pain, whe<strong>the</strong>r mental, physical or emotional, is treated <strong>the</strong><br />
same by <strong>the</strong> brain and differs only in <strong>the</strong> amount. (Los Angeles Times, 04/04/2011) Because <strong>the</strong><br />
amount <strong>of</strong> pain inflicted must be sufficient to persuade <strong>the</strong> captive to reveal in<strong>for</strong>mation he prefers not<br />
to, that pain must by definition be unendurable – if it were endurable <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> pain would be<br />
completely useless, and as such sadistic. <strong>The</strong> method chosen <strong>of</strong> producing that pain is similarly<br />
unimportant: while <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> pain differs strongly from act to act, and <strong>the</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> pain from<br />
person to person, <strong>the</strong> only thing that matters is <strong>the</strong> incentive provided to <strong>the</strong> captive by that pain. It<br />
might be argued that torture <strong>for</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation is a contradiction in terms. This is in fact precisely <strong>the</strong><br />
argument made by <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> Legal Council (OLC), who argued in <strong>the</strong>ir infamous memorandum that<br />
an individual would only be guilty <strong>of</strong> torture if inflicting pain was <strong>the</strong> “specific intent” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> torturer,<br />
and not a side effect <strong>of</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation ga<strong>the</strong>ring. (pp. 36-7) <strong>The</strong> extreme weakness <strong>of</strong> this argument is<br />
obvious in that literally no <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> torture that has existed historically would qualify under this<br />
definition – even purely sadistic torture is instrumental in that it aims at pleasing <strong>the</strong> sadist, with <strong>the</strong><br />
pain inflicted as a side effect. It might also be claimed that <strong>the</strong> captive under in<strong>for</strong>mational torture in<br />
fact holds <strong>the</strong> power to end his torment by revealing <strong>the</strong> requisite in<strong>for</strong>mation. This argument is<br />
stronger, but is also fatally compromised when we consider that <strong>the</strong> torturer is under no compulsion to<br />
end <strong>the</strong> torture once <strong>the</strong> captive has spoken – <strong>the</strong>re is (and can exist) no contract regulating torture with<br />
<strong>the</strong> captive as a party, and even if <strong>the</strong>re were, <strong>the</strong> torturer would have to believe that <strong>the</strong> captive had<br />
10