The events that occurred on the date of September 11th will never be forgotten. Millions of Americans watched as two hijackers crashed a plane into the World Trade Center. The towers, filled with smoke, broken glass, and debris, collapsed and killed thousands. This event left a large impact on Americans. Many began to wonder how we could prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. After President Bush’s proposal of preemptive war, ideas of using torture for terrorists emerged. It was seen as a way to get information from terrorists quickly in order to prevent the loss of life. However, torture is not a viable way to prevent the loss of life because it is inhumane, violates the American standard, and is ineffective. To begin with, torture is inhumane. Michael Levin, author of Case for Torture, believes that because terrorists have “[renounced civilized standards]” (Levin 95) they are not subject to protection under the law. However, …show more content…
The most well-known support for torture is the “ticking time bomb” scenario. The author of “Case for Torture” gives an example of this by asking the reader to “suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island” (Levin 95) but will not “disclose where the bomb is” (95). In doing this, the reader reflects on how effective torture would be in this specific situation. However, the argument fails to address that torture is not the only way to gain information or more importantly, that it is the correct information. Neurologist Lawrence Hinkle, who examined Korean War veterans after communist “brain-washing” stated that “any circumstance that impairs the function of the brain potentially affects the ability to give information and well as the ability to withhold it” (Arrigo 547). This proves that just because torture is being used does not guarantee that the terrorists will give all information up. They can easily create a lie or withhold the truth. Therefore, torture is
I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”
There are some that do not constitute the United States ' treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as torture because there were different definitions of the word. According to the Third Geneva Convention, torture is defined as "acts of violence" and "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted." After the September 11, 2001 attack, the United States changed its definition of torture to "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." To be regarded as torture, the act "must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent damage." Some disregard these acts as simply cruel treatment and do
Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.
In a world where we allow torture as a tactic to extract information from supposed terrorists, we could potentially save lives of thousands of people. In a hypothetical situation where there is a terrorist group who have planted a bomb in a densely populated area and we capture one of the members of the group, do we not have an obligation to get the information in any means necessary? Should we not torture one terroristic individual to save the thousands of lives of innocent American civilians? Some people would argue that we shouldn’t for many reasons, including that torture doesn’t always produce information, let alone correct information. They may argue that innocent people could be tortured, and that we wouldn’t know if
Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are
Coercive interrogation does not work in producing timely, reliable, and life saving information. Thus far, much of the discussion in this area has been concerned with the procedural, legal, and philosophical issues raised by torture. Only very limited attention has been given to the issue of effectiveness. Even if one concludes that torture can sometimes be riddled with moral objections, the argument for coercive techniques depends on the assumption that torture is an effective means of obtaining information. This is a dubious assumption. Scientific investigations of torture as an effective tool of interrogation have found no evidence that it is effective. That conclusion comes from a 2006 report on torture by the Intelligence Science Board. If torture is not an effective means to deduce information from a suspect, it is difficult to justify torture, as many experts in the field agree, even if you assert that it is necessary in certain circumstances. In addition, even if torture may work, if there are other ways to elicit information, the use of torture is not necessary. Lastly, it is super counter intuitive and has the potential to lead to radicalization.
The United States should not engage in torture because it violates one of the most basic human rights established in international law. According to the article, “The U.S. Is Still Violating the Anti-Torture Treaty It Signed 20 Years Ago” stated “In other words, it outlaws the torture of prisoners by agents of the United States regardless of their geographic location”(Schulberg, 2014). The military should not use torture because they go to those other countries and can kill innocent people because they may see everyone as a threat. For example, the military can go to a country like Afghanistan and can go into a booby trap ending an innocent person life because of the booby trap. According to the Geneva Conventions articles 13 and 32 “Civilians
Most violent offenders are not subjected to these techniques. However, it has been reported that the use of these techniques was almost commonplace in the intelligence community following the September 11 attacks. In civil proceedings, the Fifth (federal) and Fourteenth (state) Amendments address the use of these techniques. While torture is not explicitly discussed, the amendments do, among other things, provide protection against self-incrimination to include situations that are inherently coercive. Furthermore, military tribunals are more specific and require less interpretation. Rule 304 of the Manual for Military Commissions (2010) clearly states, “No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…shall be admissible in a trial by military commission...” (pp. III-8). With this in mind, if terrorists are exposed to these harsh techniques, any information obtained would not be admissible in court due, not only to the coercive techniques used, but the inherent unreliability of the information obtained. The overarching point is less about the use of harsh interrogation techniques as it is about the effects of immoral or unethical treatment in a democratic justice system. In other words, if we don’t treat terrorists the same, they become harder to successfully prosecute. Timothy McVeigh and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are
I enjoy reading your post. The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other forms of cruel, Inhuman, or degrading treatment, the International covenant on civil and political rights. All of these treaties are then codified in U.S. law, and in relevant part they add up to three things: One, you can never torture. That is to say, you can never intentionally inflict extreme or serious harm, whether physical or mental; serious physical or mental injury. Second, you can never engage in what is known legally as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment I agree with you terrorist should be charged for their wrongdoing harsh punishment, it is what they deserved without any doubt and they should be brought to justice to get the punishment
The practice of torture by United States officials has become one of the most controversial elements of military history. The debate of its use in gathering intelligence has been particularly prevalent since the Bush administration. Most recently, a detailed and graphic scene of torture was presented in the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Proponents for the use of torture state that it is necessary for intelligence gathering and that ethics should be waved aside. Opponents argue that it is not becoming of American practices and it is not a reliable source for intelligence gathering. The public debates on this issue have forced policy makers and military officials to look at whether or not torture, particularly waterboarding, should be legal. The
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity”(Tzu). What is sought after most in any sort of conflict is an advantage to win or to prevent further loss in life. Pieces of information can be obtained in a various number of ways, each approach determining the likelihood of a response and its overall accuracy. Recently the idea of torture has been brought to the table whether it is beneficial and once again Americans are split on this topic. Although in the past, many thought torture was effective since many believed the idea of pain lead to an absolute truth, in reality torture as a whole does not increase the chance to obtain time sensitive information, whether the abuse is physical or psychological.
As Americans, with our country's original ideals surrounding liberty, the “American Dream”, and pursuing happiness in life, why would we encourage such horrible acts upon other humans? These disturbing actions should have no place in our world today. Although we cannot stop torture all across the globe, we can at least do our best to set an example. The immorality of torturing suspected terrorists is counterproductive for us, and the lack of information given to the public leaves us ignorant.
The way prisoners are being tortured today is still the same as it was before it has not changed one bit. Some prisoners still think about how the guards would keep them up all night and wouldn't let them sleep by playing loud music. Other prisoners think about how the guards would surround them with attacking dogs in a corner of the cell. There are some prisoners who have been very affected by the way the guards tortured them.
One’s mind can react extraordinarily when faced with torture or abuse. Often, it plays a habit to believe that getting revenge shall be an emotional release, although that is not the truth. Instead of creating a feeling of justice, the outcome of getting revenge can be a cycle of retaliation. These two stories will then reveal the effect torture/abuse can have on one’s mind, V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and Sleepers by Barry Levinson.
Torture has been used in many different shapes and forms all over the globe. Some resulting in both positive and negative effects. The tactics of the interrogation impacts the brain's ability to think properly. Although Government torture can help prevent terrorist attacks and lead to crucial information, torture is cruel and inhuman and could possibly result in inaccurate information being given; therefore, torture tactics should not be used.