Terrorism and Torture Essay

Although most individual accept to the usage of non-lethal terror to avert the possibility of killing a very large number of innocent civilians, such acts can easily set the wrong precedent. It can be a way of allowing the illegal use of procedures to gather legal information. In this case, the mean the government uses to achieve the end is not justified by the law. Although torture is necessary in given situations as in the case of the ticking bomb scenario, it is never right and should therefore not be legitimized by the legal system. But if something is necessary would it not be right to make it part of the legal system to the extent that it does not violate other rules within the constitution? Torture is an evil and including it could easily be the beginning of allowing the non-lethal and lethal forms of torture as legitimate means of getting information from terrorists.

The unlikeliness of including torture into the legal system makes it difficult for the citizens to hold accountable the government‘s use of torture. In democracies, the people have a voice in determining the actions governments should take either directly or indirectly. The consequences of using means that are undocumented to achieve a particular goal are unlimited. Most of the actions the police use to increase security remain secretive. Allowing the police to use secretive actions which the people cannot sanction easily gives some government agents the powers to use illegal powers that may go beyond the necessary circumstances. Any case that is necessary should be legitimate, and hence, the government should find a way to incorporate the practice immediately or create

ways of its incorporation in the future. By doing this, the democracy will be making choices in accordance to limits of the constitution.

Terrorists in most cases view their actions as justifiable and may in most cases consider think of themselves as freedom fighters. Representing the interests of the people is a key similarity between terrorists and freedom fighters. However, freedom fighters tend to use means that unacceptable to achieve the objectives they believe to be valid (Ignatieff 88). The terrorist however although they purport to speak and fight for the oppressed can turn against even such groups if they fail to support them (Ignatieff 104). Freedom fighters struggle for the liberation of a population in most cases through legal means. A Terrorist or freedom fighter perspective depends on the “political point’ of consideration by a particular individual (Ignatieff 95). When a group manages to secure both international and local support, it is unlikely to be considered by other democracies as a terrorist organization. In this case, the freedom fighter is legitimate and unlikely to use force against innocent civilians to achieve their goals of fighting injustice. The perception of a group as terrorist may depend however on other people’s perception of the actions of the group. Those individuals for the actions may perceive the group as fighting for their interests and hence freedom fighters

When a democracy exploits all nonviolent means to gather useful information or to stop the possible occurrence of a crime, the circumstance justifies the government to use torture, drone strikes, and rendition. In this case, the aggressors should not target the innocent civilians but the opposing militia who in this case is

the enemy. The use of torture comes as the last resort to save the millions of lives who are likely to suffer from the inaction of the government agencies. Torture should be allowed if the "benefits” outweigh “ the costs”( Dershowitz 146).
Democracies may find it a lesser evil to use torture if such pressure yields information that will help avert a bigger loss. The security of a nation is more important than the life of a single terrorist who the government has reasonable proof to incriminate. It is for instance justified to use torture against the leader of a terror gang to get more information on their possible targets. In this case, the terrorist is first given amnesty and given the time to give useful information. If the efforts to use interrogation do not give significant progress, and the terrorist remains uncooperative, using non-lethal torture can be helpful.

Democracies can also create mechanisms under which the use of drone strikes is admissible. Since the use of such strikes is destructive and in most cases illegal, a senior authority like the president should accent to the actions. The president, in this case, can use the powers to gauge the benefits that arise from such actions. If such strikes can lead to saving of more lives to the life of the terrorist lost, then it becomes justifiable. The central authority figure holds the moral obligation to make such decisions that are not specified clearly within the law.
Democracies can use rendition to make it clear that the laws of the nation do not support inhumane treatment of a terrorist since it may constitute the violation of the constitution. Rendition,

however, shows that the country indirectly supports the inhumane treatment that is in most cases in forms of torture. Due to the unavailability of torture laws and rules sending prisoners to states that support torture may be helpful to gain information that can be useful to fight of end terror groups. Torture may be the best language a terrorist understands Although the practice may not always work.

The use of torture although effective in the short run is unlikely to end the conflict in the long run. Since terrorist organizations are in most cases political the use of torture and drone strikes can easily make the group recruit more civilians to join their course. Terrorist groups try to impose a particular way of life or ideology to a particular group. Due to their weak nature and inability to fight a fair war they use terrorism to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. Terrorists hence manage to hide among civilians with whom they share their agenda.

Policies that take into consideration the causes of terrorism are helpful in stopping acts that are likely to lead to future terrorism. It is important to understand that terrorists fight both a physical and ideological war. Changing the hearts and the minds of terrorists require intensive investment in the moral fabric of the society. The development of ways to end past injustices is also important to make individuals change their minds.

The standards governments use to condemn terrorism should be similar all over the world. The use of different standards favors a single group over others without the knowledge that every group has the potentiality to become a terrorist group.

The collusion of states is reason terrorism continues to thrive in the world. It is important to condemn terror wherever and whenever it happens without favor. Independent institutions should censor the decisions on the use of torture and other undocumented means to fight terror. In this case, the institutions have a legal and moral authority to guide on the best ways to end terrorism without violating the human rights as the constitution amendments illustrate.

Works Cited

1. Ignatieff, Michael. The lesser evil: Political ethics in an age of terror. Princeton University Press, 2013.
2. Dershowitz, Alan. "Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured? A Case Study in How a Democracy Should Make Tragic Choices in Why Terrorism Works." (2002).