The Pros And Cons Of Torture

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 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.

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.

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

In this paper, I will begin by outlining Shue’s argument that while there may be some rare circumstances in which torture would be morally permissible, laws against torture should not be less severe, as torture does not satisfy the constraint of possible compliance (CPC), and other moral considerations. I will argue that since the cessation of torture cannot be guaranteed by the torturer, interrogational torture does not satisfy the CPC. Then, I will consider the objection that in practice, torture systems can ascertain the compliance needed by the victim, and can ensure this compliance is within the victim’s power. I will conclude by countering this point, as systems of torture have proven to be unreliable, and generally, unnecessary.

At some point everyone has heard of torture. It could have been in a movie or on the news, but they have heard of it. In this day and age, people would like to have believed it was all behind us in the past. Then 9/11 happened, everyone’s lives were changed with one simple act of cruelty. Before 9/11 hit the U.S. in a wave of pain, panic, and anger, our viewpoints on torture would probably have been less likely that it should be allowed. The decision to torture people who are suspected of being part of terrorist groups has always been decided by the government, for the simple reason that it is required to keep us safe from harm. Some people believe that torture is cruel, unsightly and just inhumane. On the other hand there are

The use of torture as a strategy of war is as old as war itself. Torture serves a number of different functions. One of those functions is punishment for crimes committed, and torture is still used in this way to some degree. Another one of the functions of torture is to extract information or confessions. It is this type of torture that Alan Dershowitz and Ken Roth claim was, and still is, being used in the war against terrorism. Although torture violates the principles of the Geneva Convention, it is still used: "countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). The use of torture can be " as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). This stance echoes the official stance of the United States after September 11, when the White House claimed that torture may be "justified" (Priest and Smith). The argument is simple: if torturing one person leads to information that saes hundreds or thousands of lives, then it is worth it. "We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified").

Most of the controversy surrounding the use of torture is rooted in the ethical reasoning that is used to justify it. Before 9/11, it would have been incredibly hard to justify the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques on known terrorists and prisoners of war. The very idea of torturing another human being would force the American people to put aside some of their most cherished morals and beliefs, in a way that would render ourselves no better than the enemy and strip ourselves of the moral high ground. The culture of the United States, and other developed countries, made torture a longstanding unacceptable taboo and violation of basic human rights and dignity. Torture was an unnecessary, unethical, and unreliable practice that had no place in American policy before 9/11.

The majority of Americans think torture is vial but necessary which makes sense because torture is an awful breach of a humans rights but the moment that person does something that constitutes torture he has given up his human rights he is no longer a human in the eyes of many. When speaking of torture this means enhanced interrogation techniques. “57% of americans think waterboarding and other interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA “Provided reliable information that helps prevent terrorist attacks” either “often” or “sometimes”. Just 8% say it “Never” provides quality info in a recent CBS Poll.” (Aaron Blake Par. 6). So let's dive into this stat 57% the majority believe that torture is reliable and provides good information that prevented impending terror attacks and only 8% say it doesn't work at all and never provides good info that leaves a massive 35% of people who are undecided on the topic of if torture provides good info. This paper intends to help educate that 35% and maybe show that 8% different insights on this topic.

In regards to a bill that was introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. It is known across the world that torture is morally unethical. It is also known that allowing innocent civilians to be murdered is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people we have to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the innocents of the world and gain the needed information to do so. Winning this war on terror will occasionally come at a high cost, leaving no choice other

stand in contrast to international treaties, conventions, and declarations that provide basic guidelines for the treatment of prisoners”. Also, torture violates human rights so, the US should not torture prisoner no matter what the situation is because the notion that torture might get the information blinds us to the other way that might be just as successful. Torture does not lead to the true. In some cases, innocent people are tortured and these people had to lie in order to stop the torturing

After World War II, countries put in the Geneva Conventions that governed the treatment of wartime prisoners and civilians in occupied territories because of the catastrophic and inhumane conduct that was perpetrated by the Germans, Japanese, and Italians (Center for Constitution Rights, 2006). Although there have been some amendments, for the most part, this agreement has remained in place until the onset of terrorist attacks. When the United States was attacked on its own soil in 2001 by al Qaeda, Americans became engaged in a different kind of war, a war against individuals without country borders, and it was coined the war on terrorism. With this in mind, officials determined that the rules of the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and interrogation techniques that utilized physical and psychological torture were appropriate. This unilateral decision to disregard common protocols was based on the consequentialism view; tormenting enemies is justified if lives can be saved. Torturous acts were acceptable, if captives divulged pertinent information. While the security of any country is imperative, torture under any circumstance is wrong, even if it is practical and the results are favorable.

The use of torture has been the subject of debate for centuries. With the growth of terrorism in recent years, the debate has become hotter as people justify torture or forbid it. There is no question, however, that the use of torture on captured criminals has reduced potential attacks on innocent civilians. Idebate.org contests that “With the use of modern technologies by intelligence services and the co-operation and exchanges of information between different intelligence agencies around the world, the likelihood of catching the wrong person has slimmed significantly.” This means that the terrorist in question is almost certainly the culprit. It is reasonable that torture be used on people that have homicidal intentions. Torture is necessary in today’s society due to the increase of violence because terrorists disregard the law, the time-ticking bomb scenario, and the fact that torture can deter other potential terrorists.

Is tourturing a prisoner to obtain information any morally correct than a criminal tourtoring his victim to fulfill some sort of sadistic pleasure? Enhanced Intergogation they call it, a technique they use to bring jutice to light under a law that forrbids cruel and unusual punishment. It is to me, quite hypocritcal that a human being is allowed to cause harm on another human being under a man made law, to obtain possible information on the occurance of for exapmle, one human being hurting another human being. What if this individual, even after torture does not possess any information or provides false account, then can the torture be juctified as moraly correct? No man deserves to suffer in the hands of another. Torture is moraly incorrect nomatter its purpose.

The enemy we are fighting is lawless and ruthless towards American soldiers and citizens. Yet the U.S. is too liberal to even torture mass murdering terrorists. Two-thirds of Americans say torture can be justified to extract information, says an online survey (Kahn 1). The key term here is justified. Our government has to define who is a threat and who is not. Once the imminent threat is defined then the government can deal with the threat rightly so. This level of support is similar to the support seen in Nigeria, where militant attacks are common (Kahn 1). The American public feels threatened and a stronger plan of attack to fight terrorism is needed. Two-thirds of the respondents to the online survey say they expected a terror attack in the next six months to a year (Kahn 1). The United States cannot continue to try and explain away problems. Terrorists are taking the lives of U.S. citizens but yet our country fears offending other nations if we use torture. People hold Harry Truman as a moral hero for dropping the atomic bomb but recoil at the thought of torturing one mass-murdering terrorist to stop the almost certain slaughter of citizens or soldiers (Buchanan 3). How has torture somehow become morally wrong when we do not even bat an eye at the thought of just eliminating the threat? Al Qaeda and ISIS have certainly not adhered to laws of war and have tortured and murdered American captives (Wynia 2). The United States is more than justified to use torture for the sole purpose of extracting information. “The higher law, the moral law, the natural law permits…(torture) in extraordinary circumstances,” says three-time presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan (Buchanan 2). With the threat of terrorism at an all-time high, this would be a time that permits the use of torture. The United States needs to send a strong message and the use of