On the Topic of Torture & Terrorism

A public discussion held since 9/11 on whether torture is a justifiable interrogation tactic continued in 2006, with debate centering around the practice of 'extraordinary rendition,' whereby alien detainees in U.S. custody are brought to a third country for interrogation. These countries are typically lax adherentsto international conventions and have the habit of torturing political dissidents and others.

Torture is universally reviled, even if it is in some times and places thought necessary, because it dehumanizes its victims. The victim also may be a criminal--a terrorist. To torture them is to accept, or even invite, the idea that there are systems and people beyond human repair: torture admits a sense of futility. It undermines exactly the repair that the positive desire to end terrorism represents.

There has been less public discussion about torture's effect on torturers. For the torturer, the infliction of pain is also grave and traumatizing and disturbing to his sense of morality. It is as likely to corrupt the information being sought, as the torturer seeks to justify his (or her) own violence by ensuring that it is productive:

The relationship between the victim and the torturer is highly intimate, even if one-sided. It is filled with stress for the interrogator, balancing the job with the moral and ethical values of a person with family and friends. One way this cognitive dissonance is managed is through a group process that dehumanizes the victim. But still another way is to insure that some sort of confession is obtained to justify to the interrogator and to his superiors that pain and suffering was validly used. (From The Center for Victims of Torture)