But does this mean that torture is effective?
Here's John Oliver on Torture:
Here's a former CIA Director on the Torture Report | NBC News:
According to the Senate Report released in December 2014, torture has not been found to be effective. Torture or its more popular euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" does not work the way that torturers expect. The report found that innocent detainees who were harshly interrogated would actually confess made up information. In fact, from the Senate report, the CIA's own records showed that the detainees would give up useful information without being subjected to the harsh techniques.
The Report only reveals what neuroscientists have been saying all along: that brutality does not get results.
Professor and brain researcher Shane O' Mara explains that the reason torture does not produce reliable information is because the pain interfere with memory, mood, and thinking. The Senate committee findings support the fact that torture tactics were ineffective.
Because torture does not work, shouldn't it be eliminated immediately as a method to extract information? It would seem logical to think so. Instead of torture, interrogators might do better with offering money, freedom, or perhaps even a cup of tea.
Even though experts have found that torture does not work, torture is still seen as the default.
Should this be the blame of the media? Television shows portrayed torture as the sole effective method of interrogation. Before 9/11, only the evil characters used torture, but afterwards, many of the torturers were heroes who worked for or represented the American government. Arguably, it is to be expected that the media uses torture to create tension and a dramatic atmosphere. Movies and televisions shows are supposed to represent a state of heightened reality. It is not a surprise then that shows such as “24” or “Zero Dark Thirty” fictionalized torture for the spotlight.
This begs the question of whether or not there should there be some limitations on depictions of torture in television and films. For obvious reasons, violence such as torture is a controversial topic for many families to be explaining to their children. However, the prevalence of violence such as torture in television shows should not be limited. Through the portrayal of violence on television, families would be more inclined to discuss the problems of violent behavior and deter their children from committing such actions.
Allowing torture to be present in shows (such as Pretty Little Liars) might draw some ire from parents who claim their children are much too young to be exposed to such disturbing influences. But just because young viewers view torture occurring in television shows, it cannot be said that they would then go out and torture their classmates. Imagine what would happen if this were true. Considering the popularity of Pretty Little Liars, wouldn’t that mean more young girls would want to torture people? FYI Pretty Little Liars is a show where five popular girls are tortured by a mysterious figure named “A."
Rather than make torture commonplace, television shows make the topic of torture relevant. Without television shows like “24” how else is the public going to realize that torture is a problem?
Every democracy, including the United States, has "employed torture outside of the law." So how can torture be regulated and contained? Lawyer and professor Alan Dershowitz makes a strong case for the idea of a torture warrant. Torture warrants would legalize torture, but create a transparency in government proceedings. This transparency would be a way to hold officials accountable and less inclined to first seek out torture as a method of extracting information. Ultimately, the goal of the warrant would be to reduce and limit the amount of torture being used.
Works Cited
"Senate Report Finds CIA Interrogation Tactics Were Ineffective - NBC News." NBC NEWS. Web. 05 Feb. 2016
"Want to Torture? Get a Warrant." SFGate. Web. 05 Feb. 2016
No comments
Post a Comment