Does the United States need to torture?

The recent terrorist attack in France and the continued horror of beheadings by Isis seem to confirm the argument that torture is needed.

The defenders of torture claim that if it were not for the bad cop the good cop would not get the information. The problem is that this assumes but does not prove the necessity of torture.

But the greatest problem concerning torture deals with the question of what works in the short and long term. To answer this question we must first be very clear about goal.

Is it to stop anyone from ever using the tactics of terror again? Unfortunately, we must admit that the tactics we call terrorist have been known and used for centuries and most likely will continue to be used. Is our goal simply to stop Islamic extremists or Jihadists from attacking us? What should the goal of any war be?

This question has been thought about since the beginnings of war. One answer has been developed over the years by thinkers from what is called the 'just war tradition”, which is not pacifistic and not militaristic. In this group we find many people who call themselves realists, including Carl von Clausewitz. When considering the goal of war, Carl von Clausewitz writes in his book, On War, 'Force - that is physical force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law - is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is its object.”

Another way of thinking, which began with the Christian thinker, St. Augustine of Hippo, is called the 'just war theory or doctrine”. According to the just war tradition the ultimate goal of a just war is to establish a just peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The other principles of this theory are that a war is just only if

1. It is waged as a last resort.

2. It is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups without that authority.

3. It is fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack.

4. It is fought with 'right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. It is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.

6. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

In examining the just war theory, we find two essential components: the reason for going to war and the way war is conducted. This is a crucial distinction in our considerations of using torture.

Let us try to get a clearer more concrete notion of what a just peace is.

For example, the U.S. Civil War was a violent struggle that began as an attempt to keep the Union together and evolved into a struggle to end the evils of slavery. Therefore, a just peace had to involve, as Lincoln came to realize, an end to slavery. Another example of the importance of a just peace can be found in the first and second World Wars. Each involved countless factors, but we can conclude that World War I failed to achieve a just peace between the Allies and the German people. World War II resulted in a more just peace between the Allies and the German and Japanese peoples. Individual guilty parties were punished as a result of the Nuremberg Trials. The results were restorative peace that accepted Germany, Italy and Japan in the community of nations.

What is the just peace that is or should be the purpose of this war against Islamic Jihadists? A just peace is ultimately a state that exists between peoples. Working to establish a just peace means working to achieve a world where religious freedom is universally accepted and the dignity of all human beings is respected. What is important as we work toward that peace? Does it involve torture? Does it occasionally involve torture? Does it rule out torture completely?

If we see as our ultimate goal being a just peace in which all human beings have dignity and the freedom of religion, then it is hard to see that torture furthers this goal. This position will seem to many people as too idealistic, but recent history shows that wars are won by those who courageously fight from the morally higher ground.

' Joseph Givvin, is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Mount Mercy University. Comments: jgivvin@yahoo.com