As the evidence mounts of the large-scale torture of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay and the active approval of politicians at the highest levels of the previous US government, the debate about whether it is right to torture suspects is becoming a generation defining one.

It is a debate whose relevance is by no means limited to the United States. There is a moral question at the heart of the debate that could very well help to define the ethical future of the planet as a whole.

The divide is largely between conservatives and liberals, with the former arguing that torture is not only permissible but should actively be encouraged in the name of National security.

Liberals on the other hand tend to argue that torture is unconstitutional and undermines the reputation of the Country.

Conservatives argue that liberals are not living in the post 911 reality while liberals retort that conservatives have abandoned moral ideals to a bloodthirsty gung ho mentality.

Of course the divide is not as clear-cut as this since many people in both groups would agree with their opponents on this particular issue.

It says a lot about the surreal nature of the debate that one of its reference points is the TV show 24.

This surprisingly addictive bit of television revolves around a counter-terrorist agent who foils terrorist plots against the US by employing extremely dubious methods of persuasion.

To put it more bluntly, he tortures suspects frequently, although the show is manipulative enough to make this appear heroic.

However a recent report suggested that the lines between fact and fiction may have become a bit blurred. It noted that a few of the torturers used the shows’ hero Jack Bauer as someone to aspire to and model their behaviour on the thinking behind the show.

Now I may not have the military or political credentials of many of the people who authorized the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ of terrorist suspects, but it strikes me as a dangerous approach.

At the risk of sounding crass, torture doesn’t even appear to be of any practical use. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it cannot be very useful for intelligence services. Torturers frequently know what they want to hear from you and will not stop until they get it.

As such, innocent suspects will eventually confess to outlandish plots to stop the physical pain- I know I would. This kind of approach is straight out of the Spanish inquisition because it presupposes that you are guilty until torture definitively proves you guilty. You don’t get nuance and reasoned debate in the torture chamber.

But even more importantly is the moral issue. The United States likes to think of itself as a moral beacon and any Country with a sense of decency and self-worth likes to think that it has moral principles that define and shape it in every way.

However you cannot torture people and claim any moral high ground. There is an incompatibility there that is impossible to reason away.

Many conservatives argue that any moral issues should be subordinate to national security and government policy. Their view appears to be that moral questions are a luxury and there was outrage in many quarters when President Obama’s Attorney-General suggested that he may prosecute some of the torturers.

But I think that morals and ethics should be at the centre of government policy. It is not merely something that should appear in constitutions containing only symbolic value-It should be something that is manifested in the real world.

The author is a regular columnist
minega_isibo@yahoo.co.uk