The Abolition Of Torture Analysis

While the law itself condemns use of torture for any purpose, torture becomes necessary to be used in particular critical instances. According to Miles, the United States senate allowed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on a number of cases and detainees. The human rights should be considered first in any event whether in interrogation or any other course of action1. The policy makers have found themselves between hard and difficult decisions to make on the techniques for obtaining vital information from terrorists who are trained heavily on resisting from giving information when caught in the wrong side of the law.

With the poorly supported claim that “torture is [justifiable] only to save lives,” Levin presents weakly supported cases that appeal to the reader’s sense of emotion where torture might be valid. In the first scenario, he describes a terrorist threatening an overpopulated city with an atomic bomb; the second, a terrorist who has kidnapped a mother’s baby.

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.

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.

Torture has been used throughout history to obtain pertinent information from terrorists of the state by using many different techniques both physical and emotional. The definition of torture as it pertains to gaining information is any “act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession” according to the Convention Against Torture. The legality of torture has been discussed within the international community multiple times creating multiple treaties. Such treaties came from the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. While the countries who sign these treaties have an obligation to create effective legislation against the torture of terrorists, some countries still skirt around the international laws. The United States has used torture in the recent years to obtain intelligence from suspected terrorists. The moral dilemmas behind these actions are controversial and are debated whether or not such actions should be used to achieve information. While some organizations believe the torture of terrorists is beneficial to the United States, torture is immoral, unjust, and should not be used by any organization or state to achieve its goals. The basis for the argument against torture can be affirmed using well known and accepted moral understanding from known

After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, former United States Vice President, Dick Cheney, proclaimed the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, against a terror suspect by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped produce intelligence that led the CIA to Bin Laden. Cheney argued it was a good and legal program and that it was not torture. The use of EITs has sparked a debate in the public about the means of using torture in order to maintain security in the nation (Blakeley 544). The discussion about the use of torture in extreme situations has progressed since 2011 and remains a hot topic today. Torture has been used in many situations throughout history up to a recent past. It has been done both in secret and out in the open. Although many people are against torture in any situation, there are some people who justify the act of torture in extreme situations. The two sides show common ground in valuing human life and that torture is an extreme solution.

Torture is one of the most provocative topics within modern day government and interrogation practices. While the United States constitution’s eighth amendment states that the use of cruel and unusual punishment is a violation, there have been instances whether you look at the Civil Rights era or post-September 11, 2001. Torture has been unfortunately remained a fairly common practice. This book delves into the perspectives of many authors on their views of torture.

In this essay I will defend the nature of the balance of civil liberties, rights and torture by drawing upon Jeremy Waldron, Henry Shue and Jeff McMahan’s view on the morality of torture. Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain to an individual who is restrained and defenseless. In this paper I will argue that torture cannot be morally justified; torture ought not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized even in the ticking time bomb scenario because the rights of the innocent against the guilty is not equally balanced and the idealization/abstraction problem in the ticking time bomb case makes it unrealistic.

Finalizing the debate over torture; sadly torture does indeed work, however it comes at a cost. The use of torture is seen in the government’s eyes as a method to protect civilians. Although this may be the case, this would invoke the abuse of torture and exploitation. And while torture may work in the short run it comes at a cost of alienating a person. The result of torture will expand future threats to millions. Strozier states,

The use of torture to obtain information from a person is a practice that goes back thousands of years. In today’s society most individuals believe the practice of torture is a barbaric concept with no place in civilized society. But a question has arisen in the past few decades. Is it ever justifiable to torture a person in order to say the lives of other people? Since the events of September 11th, 2001, Americans have debated this question and many articles have been written on the subject. In their respective articles, Henry Porter and Seumas Miller, take opposite sides of the argument. Porter explains that torture is never an option, while Miller describes how torture is justified in certain situations.

Torture can be morally justifiable  when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent them from seriously hurting innocent people for the purpose of gathering information that my not necessarily be the truth.  Those arguing against the use of torture expressed the following concerns: that torture is sometimes endorsed as a punishment rather than as a means of extracting information (Carlsmith & Sood,2009), that the wrong people are tortured more often than the right people (Bellamy,2006), and that there are insufficient safeguards in the current system to prevent these misapplications from occurring. Few people agree that torturing innocent people who do not have any relevant information is morally right. This analysis assumes that there is a reasonable probability that the to-be-tortured person has information that, if acquired by the torturer, could potentially prevent some significant harm from coming to others.

With the issues going on in the Middle East today and the war on terrorism, the use of torture including murder, is a very widespread and controversial issue. Torture is viewed as morally wrong; therefore it is also legally wrong as well, not just on the home front but internationally as well (Is Torture Ever Justified). However, torture is sometimes not only right, but is needed for a greater good. With the case of torture you may not be able to see whether it is clearly wrong or right. This essay will address three situations where torture may be viewed as correct on a moral standpoint. It is clearly and completely wrong if torture is used on an innocent victim without a true greater good trying to be achieved. Saving innocent lives, taking down terrorists, and punishing them in institutions are cases where torture is should be sound. Even more so, torture in those cases should be welcomed as methods of punishment and further advancement in situations where intelligence needs to extracted for the saving of lives or the take down of terrorist activities. In no way should the use of torture be legalized for the use of the public, but in uses for the armed forces and law enforcement there should be rules and regulations that protect them if the use of torture is absolutely necessary.

Many people debate whether torture is justified, or unjustified, and whether or not it is an effective method of gaining information. Torture is usually defined as a cruel, and inhumane way of punishing someone or dismantling a human’s identity to force them to speak or do something they would otherwise not do. In earlier times, torture was used to punish crimes and to establish order or dominance. Times have changed, and there isn’t a need to be so gruesome with punishment. Now, the problem is whether or not torture should still be used under certain circumstances. In this essay, I argue that torture is never justifiable because of its negative psychological effects, along with its ineffectiveness in getting information that may be needed.

Torture is one of the most controversial topics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The age of terrorism has forced the topic to be introduced to the Legislative Branch. Now that technology is present in every aspect of life the gruesome interrogations of terrorist organizations are privy to the average Joe. Many people believe that torture is both barbaric and uncivilized reserved for third world countries and fragile regimes. These individuals tend to agree that torture is any action or practice of inflicting sever pain on someone in the version of physical or mental abuse with the desire to degrade or humiliate. However, there are individuals who believe that torture is a necessary evil; even though most third world countries

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (O’Byrne, 2003, pg. 400). This human rights violation is also discussed in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (408). While torture is discussed in many covenants and declarations as morally and legally wrong, many still argue that torture can be justified in certain situations. There are many answers and theories that can be applied to the everlasting question, is torture wrong? All the theories discussed thus far in the course will be applied to this question. In my opinion, the act of torturing someone is a heinous act that violates many human rights, and for that reason it is wrong in all circumstances, but one. I cannot undeniably state that torture is wrong, because in my opinion one situation justifies torture. So the argument that will be presented throughout this paper is that torture can be justified in a very specific situation, but in all other situations torture is morally wrong. To say that the act of torture must be either right or wrong neglects the circumstances and situations in which torture may be seen as a necessity. While it may be rare for torture to be needed, its rare usefulness doesn’t undermine its value in certain situations. To clarify, the act of harming another human being is wrong, but in some cases the act of harming someone can save many others.