To Torture or not to Torture is Never the Question

Michael Levin in his essay, "The Case for Torture," argues that torture is permissible in extreme cases where human lives are threatened; however, I disagree with Mr. Levin and would argue that his argument is flawed. The very root of his argument is illogical because his logic that torture should be allowed in extreme cases, should even be considered "morally mandatory," when a situation deems torture necessary to save innocent lives, does not address the real issue in the case for condoning torture, which relates not only to opening Pandora's box, but also equating torture with the "possibility" of saving lives.

Levin cannot argue that the case to torture, an issue so disruptive to the core values of the United States and even international law, is as simple an argument as he presents. The United States joined with many other countries at the Geneva Convention, after WWII, for the purpose of signing a declaration that openly states that all nations regardless of opposing doctrines and philosophies, would not only uphold the dignity of life by protecting their enemy's soldiers from inhumane and unjust treatment if imprisoned while at war, but also to universally declare that life, all life, is valuable. The United States took the leadership role in agreeing with nations of the world that the issue of torture, inhumane treatment of a human being, including soldiers of all nations, despite any apparent ongoing conflict, should be protected from barbarism.

I would argue that this declaration should be upheld at any cost. If the United States of America lowers its standards on the dignity of life, the respect for all human life, regardless of the sadistic minds of the criminal, such as in the case of Islamic terrorism, where human life is anything but respected, it has not only lost the war on terrorism because we have become terrorists ourselves, gradually accepting animalistic behavior, behavior never necessary if we draw upon a higher power, which is human intelligence, but also its reputation and integrity as a leader in the "free" world, a world that is becoming increasingly rare, a world that the proponents of terrorism long to eradicate.

Furthermore, I would argue that the very premise of Levin's argument is flawed. How can the united States trade gold for silver? In other words, how can we condone something with such drastic and far-reaching repercussions as torture for the "hope" the prisoner will talk, especially a prisoner who has been trained as a suicide bomber whose goal is death? Cannot the United States of America be more proactive? If the United States advocates torture, as Levin says, with the hope of gathering top-secret information, doesn't this logic merely implicate the United States as stupid? If it cannot stop the war on terror without implementing torture, then it never will. In reality, if it stoops so low as to try to get information from a mere puppet when it should have not only known prior about the plot but should have already stopped it from formulating then something is seriously wrong. It is not seeing the trees form the woods.