
Only if there is concrete evidence of terrorism, or other extreme activity, should torture be an option for gathering evidence. I am an advocate of innocent until proven guilty, and especially in Anwar’s case where there was a high possibility that he was innocent, such drastic measures should not be taken. As we discussed in class, the act of torture diminishes the legitimacy of the confession or information given. Anwar’s phone looked like a terrorist force had contacted it, so in a way the torturing seemed authorized. Electrocution and water boarding, however, are too extreme for the situation in my opinion. There are other ways of using force to scare a person into confession that do less physical harm. In the film, Fawal tries to lie to Anwar that they had confessions from Rasheed of his help with the suicide bombings, to which Anwar says that he is indeed lying. This blatant disagreement with the supposed evidence confirms that Anwar is telling the truth. If he had shown any sign of wavering in his response then that may have allowed for more interrogation. If torturing was to happen in such a form as seen in Rendition, I think that it needs to be made known to the public so that it wasn't a completely governmental controlled thing. If the United States is going to torture, in any form, it needs to be approved by the people. However I do not see the government ever relenting their ways for handling terrorism...
okay. What kind of evidence would you accept as concrete?
ReplyDelete