There is a thin line between torture, coercion, and persuasion. For some countries, torture is an adequate form of punishment used to not only instill fear, but to also show the consequences of prohibited actions to others. However, for the United States and other countries who have signed the Geneva Convention, torture is strictly prohibited, but is still practiced in different forms. The article “The Dark Art of Interrogation,” written by Mark Bowden, explores various interrogation techniques used throughout the War on Terror by the United States Military, the Israeli government, and the New York City Police force. Each of the agencies consistently agreed that using “hard torture” was “the classic shortcut for a lazy or incompetent investigator”(
…show more content…
By praying on a person’s mental and physical state, emotions, routine, and disorientation, torture can be successful for helping combatants release important information that could save lives, foil plans, and take down large organizations. For most combatants, it comes down to priorities. How much can they lose until they concede to the other side? Usually, “with older men the priorities shift slightly. In [middle age men], the family often overtakes the group (the cause) to become the second most important loyalty.[While] young men tend to be fiercely committed and ambitious…” (Bowden,2003,pp.62). Combatants have to weigh their options between complying with interrogators or withholding their information and facing the further consequences. During a combatants deliberation, this is when interrogators use “coercion,” as a way to breakdown any walls the combatant may have had and to instill fear. Even though American “coercion” may not have long lasting effects of physical harm, it’s been proven that their methods have had long lasting mental effects on combatants. Since 2003, at least three prisoners have died in American care and more than 10 have tried to committed suicide. The line between torture, coercion, and persuasion is extremely thin. Yes, civilian lives can be saved, but to what extent is it worth mentally abusing another individual regardless of their supposed
By praying on a person’s mental and physical state, emotions, routine, and disorientation, torture can be successful for helping combatants release important information that could save lives, foil plans, and take down large organizations. For most combatants, it comes down to priorities. How much can they lose until they concede to the other side? Usually, “with older men the priorities shift slightly. In [middle age men], the family often overtakes the group (the cause) to become the second most important loyalty.[While] young men tend to be fiercely committed and ambitious…” (Bowden,2003,pp.62). Combatants have to weigh their options between complying with interrogators or withholding their information and facing the further consequences. During a combatants deliberation, this is when interrogators use “coercion,” as a way to breakdown any walls the combatant may have had and to instill fear. Even though American “coercion” may not have long lasting effects of physical harm, it’s been proven that their methods have had long lasting mental effects on combatants. Since 2003, at least three prisoners have died in American care and more than 10 have tried to committed suicide. The line between torture, coercion, and persuasion is extremely thin. Yes, civilian lives can be saved, but to what extent is it worth mentally abusing another individual regardless of their supposed