Photos by Mykah Heaton
Anything that causes psychological damage is torture, according to Michael Goode, assistant professor of the department of history and political science.
Four UVU professors presented differing opinions on detention and torture during an hour-long panel discussion Feb. 14 at Centre Stage.
Jenna Nigro, history professor, asked the panel if there was legal space for redefining acts that some might see as being around the border when it comes to enhanced interrogation.
“When it comes to soft torture or enhanced techniques, it is hard to prosecute and that’s why they are used,” said Goode. “But it is torture. It’s been shown through studies that people have lifelong psychological damage.”
Matthew Duffin, criminal justice department chair, spoke from his experience as a military officer and Judge Advocate General. He cited the 2003-2004 Abu Ghraib incidents, where detainees of the Iraq War were held by the U.S. Army.
“Torture in the military is illegal,” said Duffin.
Despite reports of torture at Abu Ghraib, other widespread accusations of torture made against U.S. government employees have been greatly exaggerated, according to Duffin.
“The accounts of torture that the U.S. was accused of were not all that bad,” said Duffin. “Our enemies have done worse than we have ever done. I have not heard anyone cry out in protest of what happens to U.S. soldiers by the enemy.”
Duffin argued that pressing circumstances, such as imminent threat, should allow for the use of torture under the rule of law. According to Alan Clarke, a professor of integrated studies, this is known as the “necessity defense.”
According to the University of Cornell Law School, the necessity defense excuses illegal acts, under circumstances of public or private necessity when the illegal action will prevent the occurrence of a more serious crime. Clarke argued the risks outweigh the necessity defense, especially in terms of international relationships.
“There is an operant exception to torture,” said Clarke. “The necessity defense, or the ticking time bomb scenario. Even when you have such an issue, it never works out for the best.”
The definition of torture varied between panel members, but all agreed detention is within the rule of law.
“Detention is reversible,” said Ryan Vogel, director of national security studies. “Detention is also operationally prudent because of intelligence collection value. We detain people [in wartime], not because they are guilty of a specific crime, but because we are taking them off the battlefield.
Vogel stated that some interrogation techniques, specifically torture, violate the morals of humanity and are ineffective, citing his experience at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.
“We got more information handing out Harry Potter movies than anything,” said Vogel.
Goode used historical precedent as his argument that the U.S. has created a culture of insecurity. He argued that since the 9/11 terror attacks, the distinction between radical Islam and the rest of the religion has eroded.
“The actual threat is much more complex than we have time for in this panel,” said Goode. “A civilized western world feels threatened by a seemingly uncivilized Muslim world. We are creating the very sort of monster that is able to be used against us by a terrorist organization.”
