Under no circumstances should torture be an acceptable method to gain intelligence. In specific situations, stress positions can be adequate as long as they’re still within the parameters of the Geneva Conventions. The United States signed the document at the Convention Against Torture and thus needs to uphold the conditions of the agreement. Through the works of Hooks and Mosher and the Torture Memos, I hope to justify my belief that torture is unacceptable.
The torture memos outline the basis for the Geneva Conventions. It is understandable that people may act irrationally and in fear after what occurred on 9/11. However, that does not justify the inhumane act of torture. Although the Department of Justice and somewhat the Department of
…show more content…
However, it has come to light that torture methods have been used by the United States government. The best way to prevent torture from happening is to identify how it was justified. First, these authors look at the bad apple theory. This theory is that some low-level guys continued to push the torture further even though they were not advised to. By following through with this claim the United States fired lots of low level officials hoping that it would solve the issues. The issue with this is that the low-level people were getting instruction from someone higher up, and were therefore taking responsibility for the people in charge. Clearly, the bad apple scenario was not the issue for the United States. The next theory that the authors look at is called the elites explanation. This states that the people in charge of the United States government are the ones in charge for this. Although convincing, I do not believe this is entirely true. I think that there are flaws in the system that end up leading to the abuse of power. Thus, this leads to the final theory known as the structural explanation. This states that there is callous cruelty in information gathering and there is dehumanization of torture. These are clearly two flaws within our system. The first is that people are falling into the idea that is more important to get information than to follow someone’s basic human rights. I think this is wrong and does not give a valid reason for
Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case
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.”
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.
David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are
“Torture and abusive interrogation tactics are illegal under both U.S. law and international law. Torture is prohibited under federal law, as are lesser forms of detainee abuse such as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” (Human Rights First)
Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).
Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation
Contents of the report were already known through the media except the number of people who were tortured was more than what is known and the methods of torture were much detailed. In addition, the U.S. was in panic after the 9/11 attacks.
Memos from the Department of Defense called for the implementation of enhanced interrogation techniques to begin immediately and to be sure “these are carried out”, these were in accordance with the White House. All of President Bush’s closest cabinet members and national security advisers signed off on enhanced interrogation, believing that under the legal research conducted the techniques satisfied the legal standard as not being torture, (Bartz, 2006)
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
not only waterboarded prisoners, but slammed them into walls, chained them in uncomfortable positions for hours, stripped them of clothing and kept them awake for days on end” (Shane). These actions don’t match with the C.I.A.’s definition of torture because they were “used under strict rules”(Shane). Shane shows how the CIA justifies torture by saying that it prevents mass murders of the American public. In a hypothetical situation, there are many lives at risk and there is a potential culprit, it is logical to put that person through a near death experience to save lives. It may not be morally right but the C.I.A. isn’t worried about morals as much as American lives. Shane applies the logic to how during World War II, Japanese were put in concentration camps for safe measure. Even Japanese Americans were put in these camps which shows how the government isn’t as worried about keeping the public happy about their decisions as they are to keeping the public safe. This shows how the government justifies what they want to save lives, which often turns out being
People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.
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
Since Nine-Eleven there have been many of torturing to receive answers and information from terroristic groups. One group of psychologists agree so the U.S. use this as reasoning to continue torturing. They didn’t view this as a right of man not to be tortured obviously. In my own opinion this is not fair once-so-ever. When foreign territories torture a POW we cry and scream their injustice, but when we do the same thing we hide behind a group of psychologists. I can not think of a more hypocritical thing!