Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
- II INITIATING WAR
- III WAGING WAR
- 7 Proportionality and Necessity
- 8 Collateral Damage
- 9 Weapons of Mass Destruction: Are They Morally Special?
- 10 Justifying Torture as an Act of War
- 11 On Terrorism: Definition, Defense, and Women
- IV ENDING WAR
- Bibliography
- Index
10 - Justifying Torture as an Act of War
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
- II INITIATING WAR
- III WAGING WAR
- 7 Proportionality and Necessity
- 8 Collateral Damage
- 9 Weapons of Mass Destruction: Are They Morally Special?
- 10 Justifying Torture as an Act of War
- 11 On Terrorism: Definition, Defense, and Women
- IV ENDING WAR
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who [being unlawful combatants] are not entitled to such treatment.
– George W. Bush, February 7, 2002 (declassified June 17, 2004)For anyone who supposes the United States to have begun as an Enlightenment experiment in institutionalizing “natural [that is, moral] rights,” this sentence from a memo of a U.S. president must come as a surprise. It explicitly assumes that human beings can lose the moral right to be treated “humanely” (that is, as human beings are entitled to be treated). Underlying that explicit assumption seems to be another, that certain “unlawful combatants” have somehow forfeited their status as human beings – or, at least, their right to be treated humanely. It is that assumption I want to investigate here. If, as I believe, I can show that even terrorist suspects such as those held at Guantánamo are entitled to humane treatment, especially to be safe from torture, then it is unlikely that war provides any context justifying torture or similar forms of inhumane treatment.
This chapter has four parts. The first part offers an analysis of torture. The second explains why torture so understood is always prima facie morally wrong. Torture is a form of inhumane treatment and all inhumane treatment is always prima facie morally wrong.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- WarEssays in Political Philosophy, pp. 187 - 203Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008