Legalization Of Torture

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.

According to Joycelyn M. Pollock, torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals. Torture, according to Christopher Tindale as quoted in Torture and the Ticking bomb by Bob Brecher,

Another player in this global debate of enhanced interrogation is the United Nations itself. In May of 2005, the UN issued an 11 page panel report on the adhearance of the United States to the anti-torture treaty. In the report the UN said that the United States should stop the process of enhanced interrogation saying that it was “nothing more than torture”. The US should stop its interrogations of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by military and civilian staff and prosecute any staff found to have used any of the techniques specific to the enhanced interrogation. The UN report stopped short of admonishing the United States as the US “has a very good record on human rights” , (19 May 2006) Torture was banned by the UN in 1948, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which not only is

Torture may have different meanings depending on the situation at hand. Even so, everyone’s’ idea of it consist of the same actions such as beatings, electric shocks, use of equipment that causes extraordinary pain, drugging and even rape to harm the bodies and minds of someone or something.

The definition of torture is perceived differently to every person. In this dispute, the two opposing sides are generally immovable. Many claim that it is not an effective tool, it is downright wrong, and it just does not work, while the other side claims the opposite. The argument “The Gray Zone: Defining Torture” by Barry Gewen examines the controversial issues that erupt from the touchy topic of torture. Gewen writes a successful and persuasive argument for his favorable position towards torture as an effective mean for gathering information and halting life-threatening situations which he does through his use of strong premises, logos, and ethos, building him a credible and structurally sound argument.

Since the time of Ancient Greece, there has been an ongoing debate whether torture should be permitted in the United States of America. Torture is define as the intentional use to inflict physical or physiological pain to control and gain advantage over an individual.

The U.S. government’s misguided embrace of torture, secret prisons, and renditions to torture over the past seven years have undermined its counterterrorism efforts, provided enemies with an easy recruiting tool, and diminished the United States’ reputation as a world leader in advancing and upholding human rights. Restoring our nation’s commitment to humane treatment must be a top priority for the next president. This is not a partisan issue; during the 2008 presidential campaign, both President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain acknowledged the damage to the reputation of the United States that has been caused by this policy of torture and official cruelty, and each has vowed as president to uphold existing bans on torture the Bush

For years after the terrible acts of 9/11 the United States Government used many different tactics to acquire information about Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group known as Al Qaeda, who was involved with them, and what they were planning next. The way the government, the CIA specifically, tried and succeeded in torturing its detainees was astounding and sometimes stomach churning as shown in the movie, Zero Dark Thirty, and it’s no wonder that President Obama reformed the laws and regulations that President George W. Bush installed and allowed the CIA to do. The second item about torture for military use was the reliability of the techniques and how often and how much information was actually acquired from

“With its provocative detail splashed across the TV screens, front pages and websites of our media, the report will undoubtedly endanger American lives” (PRO: Report gives extremists a rallying cry). The Senate report released about the CIA tortures detailed actions made by CIA officials towards torturing prisoners. It explains the use of various forms of torture in the United States ever since the September 11th, 2001 attack and 2006 during the war on terror. Many people argue that the CIA torture report did not hurt the United States and its interests, but there is enough evidence to believe otherwise. For starters, the Senate report encourages extremists to further attack the United States, it leaves the US completely defenseless due to the fact that not many countries will be willing to help the US in any oncoming war, and lastly it caused immeasurable damage to the United States' public standing, as well as to the United States' longstanding global

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the American people were scared. As a result, the U.S. government wanted to ensure that any possible threat to the United States by terrorists would be stopped before a tragic event like the attacks on the World Trade Center could be repeated. Detainees with ties to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, for example, who were suspected of having key intelligence of a possible future attack would be interrogated. The manner in which these detainees were interrogated is the center of controversy as they used tactics that many would argue is torture. These methods became known as enhanced interrogation techniques. This paper will strive to answer whether enhanced interrogation techniques are actually

In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as “an 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.” as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and white definition, the conditional “…other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions…” have led many to question what precisely this entails. In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture

Sullivan argues that we should never torture terrorists, but instead, “We need human intelligence from Muslims and Arabs prepared to spy on and inform on their neighbors and friends and even family and tribe members” (Sullivan, 13). Even if these informants were willing to give information to America, how do we know that that information is accurate and is not a ploy to divert our attention elsewhere. It seems unlikely that Muslim and Arab civilians would be prepared to risk their lives like that. The conditions would have to be getting a civilian who is deep in the terrorist community, willing to betray their family or members, and then believe his information is true 100%; this seems unlikely. The chance of discovering important information during torture is better than hoping for information (that is correct) to just come to

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.

Mistreatment of people creates resentment and anger in the individual and his family, friends and community, and therefore any government-sanctioned torture here is certain to generate more hateful opponents of the US. The official use of torture by the President or another governing body in the U.S. (as given as a replacement on the instruction sheet for this paper) would nullify US efforts against torture abroad and undermine U.S. human rights policy. It also would signal to other governments that when faced with a special situation, any behavior is acceptable. It has been proven by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, United States Institute of Peace and The Crimes of War Project that legitimizing torture, even on a small scale, or any form of cruel treatment brings the principles and ethics that society is based on down. Especially if the U.S. uses it because to the rest of the world we are looked up to as the most law-biding nation, yet we bend the rules to fit each circumstance and look for the loop holes which brings further scrutiny on specific things such as; a POW not being a terrorist detainee and are somehow outside the realm of human rights laws against torture. Not only can torture be unproductive it can also work totally against a nation that uses it. For instance if the U.S. didn’t enforce the universally recognized right to not be tortured it