Persuasive Speech On 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

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

Bloche talks about how advanced interrogation and torture techniques have emerged to adapt to specific situations; and that many people believe that torture doesn’t help anything because people will say anything to get out of such tortures (Bloche 115). The article states that nothing can force someone to tell the truth; however, through harsh methods of abuse, you can instill a sense of hopelessness in the person being interrogated (Bloche

Also, if the torturee is a suspected terrorist, he is likely to know that there are limits to the amount of pain being inflicted upon him. Furthermore, the torturee will know precisely when the bomb will go off, so he knows how long his has to endure the interrogation. Also according to Brecher, there is a very realistic chance that the bombers are going to leave a very small window of time between the planting of the bomb and it going off, thus preventing a premature finding of the bomb, and also preventing long periods of interrogation if by chance anyone involved gets caught. Brecher also states that it is likely that most terrorists will die for their cause, as we have seen on September 11th, so they are more than likely willing to plant false tales under interrogational torture.

According to the blog The Spector, “A terrorist group is believed to be in possession of a nuclear device. Time is desperately short, but we have captured a member of the group. In such circumstances, torture would surely be justified” (Andersen, 2014). Torture should be used in certain situations. In conditions when a child is being tortured is is not okay, but when it is a terrorist it is okay. Torture should be used when large groups of people are being threatened. According to The New York Times, “Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive--for example when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent him from seriously harming innocent people” (Gutting, McMahan, 2015). Torturing people is okay when used right. People should only use torture when many other people's lives are at risk. Although torturing someone to save a large group of people may seem good, it’s not, because they could give false information to get you to stop, and you may injure more people than you

Automatically you will have the majority of the population against this idea. However when you add the intent behind the torture, which, in this case is to prevent acts of terrorism. The term “terrorism” is added to the equation, this term has an equally horrific image associated with it. This will have some people re-thinking their assumptions of torture under these specific circumstances.

The United States has been, and may again be, under terrorist threat and attacks or other similar incidents. Torture can be used to prevent these terrible incidents and save the lives of many people. Torture in the United States has been a debatable subject for many years now but after resent tragedies, the idea of torture of many American citizens has changed. It has also been debated over more after the attacks on September 9, 2001 than any other time in American history. Many fight the legalization of torture for moral and civil reasons but the truth is that torture is a lesser evil that can be used for a greater good.

Torture can be a useful tool. Many times torture is used to gather information that is needed to secure the country’s freedom from threats. By using torture, citizens have been protected from possible attacks, just like when Osama Bin Laden was captured. Torture can also act as a deterrent

Should torture be used on suspected terrorists? This question has garnered recent media attention in light of the Paris terror attacks, and has forced a variety of nations to step up and try to prevent such callous acts. Although small advances are being made to counter these blood thirsty and inhumane terrorists; it is clearly evident, that if we are to avoid catastrophe, then extremism must be stopped at the source, rather than just before the end of the line. Thus, torture should be authorized to be used on suspected terrorists; as it will drastically improve the authorities’ ability to strangle the stem of extremism, and potentially save the lives of innocent souls like you and me.

Others may take a more utilitarian view, that torture is wrong because it results in suffering for the tortured and fear for the general populace, who have to live every day with the possibility that they might be arrested mistakenly as a terrorist and subjected to torture to extract information they don't know. After all, from a legal perspective, a 'suspected terrorist' is by definition an innocent man - if he's suspected, he hasn't been convicted - and if you have a regime which tortures suspects, that means you have a regime which can torture anyone, for any reason. Utilitarians might, however, support torture if it the considerable evils of torture were truly lesser than the evils that

From Christian-princible based ethics I believe we must follow the moral rules which are provided for us in the Ten Commandments. Although this seems likea a case where the rules should be bent the law does not indorce torturing as a means to get answers we want provided. Due to the laws being what they are in the United States it would not be right to torture

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.

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

In some situations, this works wonders for the interrogator. On the other hand this can backfire because the detainee could tell the interrogator what he wants to hear, just to make the torture stop, whether or not the information given is the actual truth. So what are the good reasons and the bad reasons to torture?

These considerations certainly establish a compelling argument for the use of waterboarding as a means to collect important information in a combat environment. There are, however, compelling arguments against the use of any form of torture. One of the more prominent arguments is that it does not provide officials with any actual intelligence. A former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, presents a logical argument that waterboarding does not work. He explains that two terrorists, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were waterboarded 83 and 183 times respectively (Collins, 2014). It is hard to imagine that anything beyond the first few attempts would have truly provided any form of actionable intelligence. At this point in their torture, these two terrorists may only provide false information that may seem important. In their eyes, this would provide the quickest