Is Torture Acceptable? Today 's World Essay

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

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.

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).

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

The subsequent case study, prepared by James P. Pfiffner, Torture and Public Policy, (2010) analyzes the torture and abuse of war prisoners by United States military personnel in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, following photographs of the abuse spread around the world in the fall of 2003. Pfiffner points out that the United States Military, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfield, and President George W. Bush assumed a role in the events leading up to the exploitation, even though it has never been corroborated that President Bush or Secretary of State Rumsfield directly condoned the abuse.

Is torture justified? Does it make us feel safer? Most Americans would say that it is immoral to torture any human being for any reason. There are a few people left who would disagree with that and say that some deserve to be tortured in order to obtain information that could potentially save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

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

Many of those detained in the military entrenched prisons inside Iraq, are subject to torture by one of many interrogators that are allowed to use any method necessary to gain intelligence on any of these two primary goals. The collection of the intelligence, was then used in many strikes against those who stood against the United States against the overall goal of creating a free Iraq.

Allegedly, the outsourcing of terror suspects to countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Syria, countries that engage in torture, also occurred. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported on methods of physical and psychological coercion used to extract information from prisoners in Iraq. These methods include beatings with hard objects, slapping, punching, kicking, prolonged exposure to the sun, and parading detainees naked, sometimes with women’s underwear on their heads. In some cases, threats were issued against the detainees’ families (Ramsey 105). Acts such as these are what determined the necessity of the 1984 convention prohibiting torture, and yet the abuse continues.

Michael Yoo used several definitions from several different places to define torture in his argument. The first definition is the one he used when he defined torture as the following: act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. The other definition he uses it used to show what the government defines torture as. This definition is as follows: The United States

This research paper talks about the controversy of torture in America. Torture is defined as a punishment of severe and intentional pain, either mentally or physically, inflicted on a person, particularly to receive information from him or her (“Defining Torture”). Starting around 530 A.D., the Romans started using torture as a tactic to get statements from people that they claimed they could not get any other way. For the same reason, the French and Italians adopted using torture around the twelfth-century; however, they began to inflict torture on people because their law system required that they must have a confession from the suspect or witnesses in order to punish the person (Green). America adopted similar practices such as the French and Italians did, but the United States government claims that torture has only been used as a way to keep America safe from

In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more

Ten years ago on September 11th, terrorists successfully carried out a plan to kill thousands of innocent American civilians. On that day millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief. How could something like this happen on American soil? In quick retaliation, President George W. Bush forcefully declared a war against terrorism and specifically against those responsible for the slaughter of his people, Al Qaida. At the head of this organization and architect of “9-11” was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. He openly boasted of the devastation he had caused, which in turn enraged the American people. This man eluded us for the past ten years until a little over a week ago President Barack Obama announced to the world that

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.

“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’, nor ‘Can they talk?’ but, ‘Can they suffer?’ Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?” was a statement made by Jeremy Bentham from his book “Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation”. In response to animals suffering, many will excuse the pain by explaining that animals cannot feel pain or live in reason as a human does. As a response, many activists have proven animals can feel pain and emotions as they react in situations, but they are not able to communicate it into words. A counter argument for this would be that an infant can experience emotions and pain as well, but they also suffer quietly as if they are an animal, too. However, an infant suffering does not go unnoticed as it does with an animal. Why is a human’s life more valued than an animal? The answer is simple: humans are protected by rights while a non-human animal is not. In fifth article of the Universal Declaration of Humans Right, it is declared that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." What is considered torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights though? Torture is defined as “practices that are intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that result in severe pain or suffering.” This specific right is recognized in America, especially through the courts. Yet, this same right does not apply to animals that suffer from torture.