The Ethical Implications Of Terrorism

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.

Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world… America is at our best when our actions match our values… Yes, the threat of terrorism is real and urgent, scores of children were just murdered in Pakistan, beheadings in the Middle East, a siege in Sydney, these tragedies not only break hearts but should steel our resolve and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our adversaries (“Should Interrogation Techniques”).

With his article “The Case for Torture” Levin has made his readers think over what the differences between the death penalty and torture. Levin provides evidences and asks questions to lead his readers into forming their own opinion on whether torture is totally unacceptable in any situation or not. But it is clear by the end of the article where Levin stands on the topic of

In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it

After watching Frontlines documentary Secrets, Politics and Torture one is automatically faced with mixed views on the major issue, torture, discussed throughout the documentary. At first it shows the different ways our government tries to protect our country and national security, but as one continues to watch the documentary you see how our government attempts to manipulate rules and scenarios in order to help protect the CIA’s inappropriate behavior. On the one hand it is easy to understand why it was unnecessary to torture the prisoners we held captive, but in another light we must also understand the real reasons for acting with such cruel behavior.

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 coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion, disaster has struck! The implausible has just happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government’s obligation to the people to ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of

The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as ‘lesser evil ethics’—a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American’s as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on whether torture is right or wrong.

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

This article will discuss the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA's) Enhanced Interrogation Program that was created following the attacks of 9/11. This program violated not only domestic law but international law as well. First introduced will be the reasons for the initiation of the CIA’s interrogation program. Then this article will explain the “ticking time bomb” philosophical argument that validates torture. Next, It will discuss the violation of the constitutions eight amendment and the Geneva Conventions international rules that prohibit torture. Lastly, the effectiveness of the program will be analyzed to examine if the pain and infliction that the program caused were of any use to prevent imminent terror attacks.

The practice of torture by United States officials has become one of the most controversial elements of military history. The debate of its use in gathering intelligence has been particularly prevalent since the Bush administration. Most recently, a detailed and graphic scene of torture was presented in the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Proponents for the use of torture state that it is necessary for intelligence gathering and that ethics should be waved aside. Opponents argue that it is not becoming of American practices and it is not a reliable source for intelligence gathering. The public debates on this issue have forced policy makers and military officials to look at whether or not torture, particularly waterboarding, should be legal. The

In this article, Andrew Sullivan, is an advocate for the abolition of torture against terrorist in the United States. During the time that this article was written, the McCain Amendment (which banned torture) was on a political limbo. What this author talks mostly about is the choice that we have to make things right, therefore ban the use of torture against terrorist. This debate takes place after Bush administration defined "torture" and permitted coercive, physical abuse of enemy combatants if "military necessity" demands it. Also after several reports found severe abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has led to at least two dozen deaths during interrogation, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe and innocent detainees being murdered.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

The notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by