An Issue of Torture in The Movie Unthinkable

Torture, as defined by Dr. Maureen Ramsay, is described as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third party information or confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed, or is suspected of committing, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. This definition includes whether such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (Ramsay, 2006). In this essay, I will argue for an absolute ban on torture, asserting that torture should not be allowed under any circumstances, including the ticking time bomb scenario. To do this, I will compare arguments and information found in the following articles: "Why Understanding the Threat: Terrorism Responding to the Challenge" by Alan M. Dershowitz, "Can the Torture of Terrorist Suspects Be Justified" by Dr. Maureen Ramsay, "Revenge Versus Rapport: Interrogation, Terrorism, and Torture" by Laurence Alison and Emily Alison, and "The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr" by Jeff Tietz, as well as the movie "Unthinkable".

The Theme of Torture in the Film Unthinkable

The plot of the movie "Unthinkable" is essentially the ticking time bomb scenario. Steven Younger is an ex-military man with expertise in bomb-making, assault-rifle marksmanship, combat tactics, and training in case he became a prisoner of war. He is arrested for the suspected murder of a police officer, detained in an unknown location, and then tortured for information on nuclear bombs that he had supposedly hidden in three locations around the United States. The bombs are set to go off in three days, so the interrogation methods increasingly intensify until the man hired to do the torturing/interrogating needs to do the unthinkable to receive the information that will save thousands of innocent people.

Upon watching this movie, I immediately noticed similarities to a suspected torture case that was fairly recently in the news in Canada. Omar Khadr was a Canadian citizen born in Toronto. Khadr’s father trained him in bomb-making, assault-rifle marksmanship, and combat tactics. Then, at the age of fifteen, Khadr was arrested for the suspected killing of a U.S. Sergeant, detained in Guantanamo Bay, and tortured for information on Osama Bin Laden and the suspected terrorist attacks (Tietz, 2006). The case of Omar Khadr is eerily similar, and yet the current prime minister deemed his situation a violation of human rights, and Khadr was given a 10.5-million-dollar settlement.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

In "Unthinkable," you see Agent Brody come in and tell Military General Paulsen, the man seemingly in charge, that the military has no authority on home soil and they are unlawfully detaining an American citizen. General Paulsen replies that under the Defense Authorization Act and as an enemy combatant under the Military Commission Act, as well as the Geneva Convention laws, Younger is stripped of his American citizenship. Because he is not an American citizen, he can be subjected to what he called enhanced interrogation under the president's orders. Then "H" comes in to perform the enhanced interrogation or torturing, and almost immediately, General Paulsen passes charge to Colonel Kermeniann, showing that he did not want to take responsibility for what was about to happen. You also see an officer remove his name tag to keep his identity hidden.

Omar Khadr was also stripped of his citizenship due to his violation of the Geneva Convention, which also allowed the United States military to interrogate him as an adult/terrorist using “enhanced interrogation methods” (Tietz, 2006). These rules, allowing basically anything to happen under the rule of the president, are exactly why Alan Dershowitz argues for the need for some sort of legal policies to be set in situations similar to these. Dershowitz states there are three ways to look at the issue of torture. The first is “to allow the security service to continue to fight its war against terrorism in a 'twilight zone' which is outside the realm of law” (Dershowitz, 2002). He thinks that people are getting tortured despite it being against human rights already. The second is "the way of the hypocrites: they declare that they abide by the rule of law, but turn a blind eye to what goes on beneath the surface," pretending like nothing is happening with no accountability, records, standards, or limits. The third is "the truthful road of the rule of law," namely, that the "law itself must ensure a proper framework for the activity of the security agency responsible for counterterrorism" (Dershowitz, 2002). Dershowitz suggests a formal warrant for non-lethal torture obtained only by a judge for torture such as a sterilized needle under the person's fingernails where there is no serious lasting damage. He then goes on to say that there is also, of course, a fourth option: namely, to forgo any torture and let the terrorist acts occur.

Dr. Maureen Ramsay counters his ideas by stating all three of his original arguments are flawed, and that making a judge make the final rulings just offloads the moral responsibility to someone else again. Ramsay argues that “History shows that torture is never limited. As soon as its use is permitted once, as for example, in one of the extreme circumstances like a bomb, it is logical to use it on people who might place bombs, or on people who might think of placing bombs, or on people who defend the kind of person who might think of placing bombs” (Ramsay, 2006). It is a very slippery slope, and she argues that it is a very unreliable method of obtaining truthful information. An example of false information from the movie is when Younger, needing a break from being tortured, gives a fake location of a bomb or when he breaks down in tears and states there are no bombs, that he lied, and to please stop hurting him. This is similar to the Khadr case, as he was tortured until he confessed to killing the Sergeant, even when there were witnesses who say that he couldn’t have possibly been the one who did that (Tietz, 2006).

Psychological Impact and Alternatives

Another point against making torture part of our legal frameworks is what happens to the tortured inmate after you get information, true or false, out of the person. Dershowitz argues there is no lasting physical trauma, but what about psychological or emotional trauma? Emily and Laurence Alison explain that when the brain is under that much stress, it impairs the ability to recall information, damaging the reliability of even so-called truthful recollections. With impaired recollection, it impairs all communication and creates significant lasting trauma in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, psychosis, and learned helplessness, along with a bloodlust for revenge and a lasting "us vs. them" mentality (Alison & Alison, 2009). Do we just set free a vengeful, psychosis-ridden person into a society that they feel they don’t belong to? In the movie, Younger is released because they can’t prosecute someone without fingernails; he then proceeds to shoot himself in the head, showing depression, psychosis, and learned helplessness. In real life, Omar received a settlement of just about eleven million dollars, is living in Edmonton, and has had Dr. Eric Trupin, a mental health specialist, report “he has a significant risk for future psychiatric deterioration, which may include irreversible psychiatric symptoms and disorders, such as a psychosis with treatment-resistant hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and persistent self-harming attempts” (Trupin, 2010).

The Alisons argue that “knowing that torture does not work is not enough to stop the notion that it is better than nothing. To do that, you must present an alternative that works” (Alison & Alison, 2009). So then, what works? Neuroscience and psychology have proven time and time again that when interrogators “placed high value on the capacity to relate, social and religious tolerance, flexibility, empathy, situational awareness, and cultural knowledge,” the interrogee was more likely to talk. It enhances cooperation and elicits more accurate information (Alison & Alison, 2009).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the torture of the ticking time bomb terrorist, of Omar Khadr, and many other citizens have led to unnecessary torture resulting in false confessions. If any legal framework on torture is to take place, it should be a total ban. The question is not of two evils, as Dershowitz argues, but one of humanity and torture.

References

• Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2009). Revenge Versus Rapport: Interrogation, Terrorism, and Torture. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.
• Dershowitz, A. M. (2002). Why Understanding the Threat: Terrorism Responding to the Challenge. Yale University Press.
• Ramsay, M. (2006). Can the Torture of Terrorist Suspects Be Justified? Journal of Applied Philosophy.
• Tietz, J. (2006). The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr. Rolling Stone.
• Trupin, E. (2010). Psychological Evaluation Report of Omar Khadr.