Outsourcing Torture

This week’s New Yorker features a fantastic article on the ethicality and usefulness of the United States’ current practice of outsourcing torture to Egypt.

It’s no surprise that the United States gives the green light when it comes to torturing terrorist suspects, and it’s no surprise that they adamantly deny this violation of human rights. Most (or many, I should say) people would agree that torturing one man in exchange for saving the lives of thousands can be justified. If Mohammed Atta had been in a cold, dark room with water up to his chin, it’s conceivable that 9/11 never would have happened, and few citizens would lose sleep over this. Of course, this is hindsight, when it’s easy to make these Philosophy 101 decisions, and when the man in question is always guilty.

But one main point in Jane Mayer’s article is that torture may be nearly useless anyway. A man threatened to be boiled alive will always say whatever his captors want to hear, whether it’s true or not. There is also the “sticky” legal situation of what to do with the detainees after they have been exhausted for information (i.e. those in Guantanamo). They cannot be entered in the legal system because all confessionals obtained through such coercion will be thrown out, not to mention the ugly PR the United States will incur.

The idea of torturing an innocent person is horrifying, even (and especially) in the name of protecting U.S. citizens. As pointed out in Mayer’s article, much more information can be obtained through strategic, informational operations (wire tapping, infiltration, etc.).