The Abolition Of Torture Analysis

This paper addresses one of the most abiding and heated controversies surrounding the topic of torture and morality. Put simply, this controversy concerns the issue of whether under extreme and exceptional circumstances, a government agency should be legally permitted to use torture as a means of punishment or extracting information. According to Oxford Dictionary, torture is defined as “The action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something”. On one side of the controversy, a significant community of experts argue that a government should be able to use torture, but only under very particular and exceptional circumstances, such as a terrorist attack, when thousands of innocent lives
In his article, Krauthammer identifies the inherent wrongness of torture, but argues that under very limited circumstances, such as potential terrorist attacks, some forms of torture should be legally permissible. Sullivan disagrees. In my appraisal, for the reasons stated below, Krauthammer’s argument in defence of torture is overwhelmingly more plausible and persuasive than Sullivan’s efforts to demonstrate that the very idea of torture is in violation of basic human rights. I will begin by outlining the key points of Krauthammer’s argument. I will then outline Sullivan’s objection to Krauthammer’s argument. Finally, I will argue that Krauthammer seriously weakens Sullivan’s
Claiming that “[i]t would be a gross dereliction of duty for any government not to keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isolated, disoriented, alone, despairing, . . . in order to find out what he knew about plans for future mass murder” (6). In concluding this thought, Krauthammer argues that the only time aggressive forms of interrogation techniques such as torture should be allowed are in the case of Mohammed and the al Qaeda, or in similar situations that include a terrorist who may hold vitally valuable information. In his article entitled The Abolition of Torture, Sullivan responds to Krauthammer’s endorsement of torture “under strictly curtailed conditions” (1). Sullivan objects to this proposed allowance of torture under certain circumstances as “an abandonment and violation of America’s constitutional principles that uphold the country as a defender of human rights” (3), and argues in favour of the unconditional ban of torture, referring to it as "a terrible and monstrous