The Student News Site of the Latin School of Chicago

The Forum

The Student News Site of the Latin School of Chicago

The Forum

The Student News Site of the Latin School of Chicago

The Forum

The Real Implications and Questions of Torture

Hedy Gutfreund Co-Editor-in-Chief Thursday morning: torture. No, I don’t mean I had a terrible Thursday. In fact, it was a pretty decent Thursday. But the topic of the Thursday, November 29 LIFE program was torture—namely, torture victims and the implications of torture. I spent long block watching Beneath the Blindfold, a new documentary that featured Dr. Mary Fabri. Then, we had the privilege to hear Dr. Fabri speak in an all-school assembly, and I also attended the discussions afterwards. The documentary and Dr. Fabri underscored a few major points, but there are a few stones left unturned. First, torture has long-lasting psychological effects. The movie focused on four torture survivors who had trouble living normal lives after torture that happened to them years ago. Matilde de la Sierra, who was abducted and tortured in Guatemala after receiving many death threats for being a doctor there, described how it is difficult for her to go out at night because of all the triggers of torture that haunt her. Dr. Fabri’s second major point was that torture is mostly used as an instrument of government control. So, it’s not always about getting information from a terrorist or about punishment — it’s about showing that the government is in control. And this happens to innocent people around the world under repressive regimes or regimes led by insurgencies. Along with this point came the idea that we can do something about it. Whether it’s writing letters through Amnesty International or protesting in Washington, D.C. about torture, we don’t have to stand by idly. Her final major point, though, was that nobody should ever be tortured. Donald Vance, one of the subjects of the movie and a Chicago-born Navy veteran, was tortured in an American detention center for three months in Iraq for whistleblowing to the F.B.I. about corruption in the military. Often, we like to forget that the United States participates in torture, and we like to forget that it’s not always black and white. In Vance’s words, “I really don’t care what country you’re from, I don’t care what color your skin is, I don’t care who you pray to. This shouldn’t happen to anyone. Period!” But it’s not as easy as that. What about what we see on shows like 24 and NYPD Blue? Is it necessary to use torture for information sometimes? That’s what junior Jack Gomberg wanted to hear Dr. Fabri talk more about. In his words, “We can all agree that torture as a means of controlling a population is completely wrong on basically every moral level. But she only talked about the torturing criminals/terrorists for about 2-5 minutes.” And that’s where the line gets blurry. Dr. Fabri advocates that a good cop/bad cop strategy is more effective. This caused some disagreement in the Latin community, and this discussion is far from finished. So, Forum readers, what do you think? When is torture okay? Is it ever okay? And what is our responsibility to act?]]>

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Forum Awards Are Back!

Submit by May 1st

Comments (2)

All The Forum Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • N

    nknoxDec 4, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    I also would have liked to hear her speak on is torture ever “okay”. The way she was describing torture, one could describe jail as torture. So would we remove jails? I don’t like to tell the military how to do their thing, because at the end of the day they are out there fighting for me and my country. They know what is best.

    Reply
  • P

    pwigginDec 3, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    I agree with Dr. Fabri that all torture should be illegal. The question is, what is torture? Who decides? For some people, solitary confinement would be emotionally scarring and physically harmful, while for others, its no worse than sharing a cell. I’d venture to say many criminals could survive waterboarding almost unaffected––I’m not one of them. At the same time, it seems strange to determine punishments according to the offender’s response…should a more fragile person get less time in jail, lest we hurt their feelings too much?
    I universally oppose physical torture (waterboarding, for example), partly for ethical reasons, but also because it doesn’t work. And it doesn’t. Torture is far more likely to draw false confessions than real ones (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2).

    Reply
Activate Search
The Student News Site of the Latin School of Chicago
The Real Implications and Questions of Torture