Author Paul Kahn expresses his opinion about torture by saying, “I am most certainly against torture just as I am against terror,” (13). Beginning with this statement I believe that torture is not something I personally disagree with. Of course if terror did not exist, I am sure that I would undoubtedly have agreed with Kahn’s statement(s). I understand that on many occasions he articulates that torture and terror go hand in hand. Both terms are significantly linked together in the sense that they both create fear, violence and tend to have a specific goal. “…terror and torture speak in the same voice: they are matched forms of behavior at the level of symbolic meanings,” (13). As harsh as my disagreement may sound compare to him, I believe that any extreme measure should be used to protect nations. This does not mean I agree with the idea that people should be suicide bombers to make a point, or that people should use religion to justify that any action taken is correct. I just believe that there needs to be a defense that is equivalent to the force that someone is against. In this case being governments against governments or religion against religion or governments against religions, or vise versus. In whichever way, I think that torture should not be looked down upon if ever used in a matter necessary- and of course when that kind of power is not exploited. Sadly, that is not always the case.
For example, women and even men at times are tortured. Not because someone is trying to get information out of them. Torture does not always mean that someone is getting beat up or that it is used for the right reasons. Just like the women from Juarez and from all over the world. “Violence against women occurs in many forms, from rape…battering to psychological and verbal attacks including threats and intimidation,” (K. Staudt, 29).It has even been discussed in class that being abused of does not have to be physical and it is just as painful. And maybe this is why it should be a reason for me to disagree with torture but at the end of the day no matter what kind of violence it is, may it be justified violence, fake violence (ex: action movies/shows…), violence against innocents, violence against those who deserve it; torture does not stop from being torture and neither does terror. And because terror does exist and it is used to its fullest, torture should be too.
I thought it was very interesting that Kathleen Staudt, before beginning her essay, she quotes Hanna Arendt. “[E]very decrease in power is an open invitation to violence,” (29). And I couldn’t agree more with that statement, to a certain extent. In my opinion, it is just a way of saying that if you have power and use it appropriately there is a better chance of not being attacked by an opponent, if you are, at least it should be known to others that there are severe consequences that follow. The government and military’s, though they abide by the prohibition on torture mentioned in Kahn’s introduction, they still have the power to use violence. Maybe it is thought as immoral but Kahn says, “The torture that survives occurs in places closed to public regard… torture has the opaque presence of the “deniable.” It must be known but not seen…” (3). So, if its already used, why not use it in a manner that is effective and not be abused by those who potentially have the authority to use it?
Gender, Torture, State in Crisis 