Arguments For Torture

The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing a person for an act that he is suspected of having committed. Torture also includes intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when a person acting in an official capacity inflicts pain or suffering (Convention Against Torture para. 2). Although some people believe that torture is acceptable, in reality it is neither an acceptable nor a reliable method for obtaining information and should not be continued.

Throughout modern history, morals is questioned when torture is involved. Torture should be a black and white, yes or no question. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. In the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. To threaten to use torture is the same as actually torturing, both legally and morally. Should torture and the threat of torture be morally and legally acceptable, then in all levels involving local, state and federal systems should be able to use torture techniques.

In this paper, I will begin by outlining Shue’s argument that while there may be some rare circumstances in which torture would be morally permissible, laws against torture should not be less severe, as torture does not satisfy the constraint of possible compliance (CPC), and other moral considerations. I will argue that since the cessation of torture cannot be guaranteed by the torturer, interrogational torture does not satisfy the CPC. Then, I will consider the objection that in practice, torture systems can ascertain the compliance needed by the victim, and can ensure this compliance is within the victim’s power. I will conclude by countering this point, as systems of torture have proven to be unreliable, and generally, unnecessary.

Most of the controversy surrounding the use of torture is rooted in the ethical reasoning that is used to justify it. Before 9/11, it would have been incredibly hard to justify the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques on known terrorists and prisoners of war. The very idea of torturing another human being would force the American people to put aside some of their most cherished morals and beliefs, in a way that would render ourselves no better than the enemy and strip ourselves of the moral high ground. The culture of the United States, and other developed countries, made torture a longstanding unacceptable taboo and violation of basic human rights and dignity. Torture was an unnecessary, unethical, and unreliable practice that had no place in American policy before 9/11.

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 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

By definition, torture is the act of inflicting serious psychological or physical pain on an individual with an aim of affecting the individual or group, punishing the person for deeds committed, or to acquire information from the person. Torture is usually carried out with the full permission of an individual who works for a public body or a civil servant. In other words, torture can be defined as a severe and systematic violation of the integrity of an individual with extreme social and psychological consequences. Essentially, it is assumed that torture is completely impermissible and is further considered as an ancient practice which outlived its usefulness long time a ago. Societies that consider themselves

In the late twelfth century, the inquisitional procedure was introduced to papal legislation with the purpose of controlling those who strayed from the church. In inquisitional procedure, the court is directly involved in investigation. This eventually extended to secular (nonreligious) crime as well.

Torture in the interrogation process has been a readily available tool for interrogators for centuries, there have been many published definitions of the exact meaning of “torture”, and entities will shape and curtail the definition as to suit their individual needs. One such definition, as per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states, “Torture is; (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person; (b)

Can torture, the infliction of intolerable pain to extract potentially life-saving information from war criminals, ever be justified? What if this torture or activity is sanctioned or ordered by those in authority? Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, numerous reported incidents of torturing detainees by the United States have been covered in the media all over the world. The public first learned about the horrific actions of the United States when the truths of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Most Americans are shocked by those horrendous and disturbing photographs of the abuse of prisoners broadcasted. When the humiliation of Abu Ghraib surfaced, the US government argued that it was solely the work of a couple soldiers. However, the truth is that prisoner abuses have expanded with the soldiers knowing that it is possible for them to get away with such atrocious actions. Moreover, the use of torture by the United States is setting a bad example for the authoritarian regimes abroad, and sending out the wrong signal that torture is legitimate (Greenberg, 2009). It further damages United States' authority to act as international police to speak out against authoritarian regimes that are treating detainees in even less humane ways. Some government officials believe that life-saving torture is morally justified, because the lives of innocent people prevails the infliction of physical pains to criminals. Others reject torture as both unreliable and an insult to basic principles

The use of torture has been the subject of debate for centuries. With the growth of terrorism in recent years, the debate has become hotter as people justify torture or forbid it. There is no question, however, that the use of torture on captured criminals has reduced potential attacks on innocent civilians. Idebate.org contests that “With the use of modern technologies by intelligence services and the co-operation and exchanges of information between different intelligence agencies around the world, the likelihood of catching the wrong person has slimmed significantly.” This means that the terrorist in question is almost certainly the culprit. It is reasonable that torture be used on people that have homicidal intentions. Torture is necessary in today’s society due to the increase of violence because terrorists disregard the law, the time-ticking bomb scenario, and the fact that torture can deter other potential terrorists.

Torture is a very sensitive and well-debated topic post 9/11, and the fight on terrorism faced by the U.S. and in many cases the whole world. Torture is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something.” So this crucial and well-debated question has many opinions and sides to it.

“The Case for Torture” is a notable work of Michael Kelvin where the author has tried to explain whether torturing an individual can be justified under any circumstances. At the very beginning of the essay, the author has given us a clear indication of what the general population perceives regarding torture altogether. Here we can see that majority of the people considers torture to be an inhuman act which should not be practiced under any circumstances. It degrades the state of a human being, violates his certain rights given through a clearly defined legal infrastructure and it can be replaced by many other approaches which is considerably less violent. Torture is often described as a practice from the middle ages when indescribable means were used to force someone to do something or disclose information otherwise which could not be retrieved.

There is a sensible reason for the worldly prohibition on torture. The exactly simple of torture drive at attacking and dehumanizing is screams of uncivilized societies. It is not something cultivate societies should recur to. Nevertheless, the supporter of torture, including (Deshowitz, A. 2003.), suggest that, given torture has been being used behind the scenes all over the world, it be made more accountable within legal control. Deshowitz also mention the notorious “ticking bomb scenario” that torture is useful when such necessary and dreadful

Torture can be defined as, the action of purposely inflicting physical or psychological pain on another individual in order to get information out of them. Although many may argue that torture isn’t necessary, it is necessary because by torturing we are able to save thousands of innocent lives. Torture has been around since ancient times; however, during ancient times it was much more violent than it is today.