The Security Has Become A Hot Button Issue

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.

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 Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

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.

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

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

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 of a person is defined as the action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do something. Tormenting a person who is a severe threat to our country’s freedom is acceptable as long as they are not tortured to death. The torture given should depend on the harshness of the threat they are inflicting on the country and the people that inhabit it. Examples of severe threats could include terrorism, spying, fake news, fraudulence, and many more. These are the types of threats the government should be focusing on.

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

The United States should not engage in torture because it violates one of the most basic human rights established in international law. According to the article, “The U.S. Is Still Violating the Anti-Torture Treaty It Signed 20 Years Ago” stated “In other words, it outlaws the torture of prisoners by agents of the United States regardless of their geographic location”(Schulberg, 2014). The military should not use torture because they go to those other countries and can kill innocent people because they may see everyone as a threat. For example, the military can go to a country like Afghanistan and can go into a booby trap ending an innocent person life because of the booby trap. According to the Geneva Conventions articles 13 and 32 “Civilians

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.

. .and we would have learned a great deal less without these techniques’”(Politico, “Should America Torture?, Gordon/Gerstein). Former official in the Bush administration even agreed to revert to torture for answers, saying that “..It works. One of the reasons assertive interrogation techniques have been used is because they work” (Politico, “Should America Torture?”, Gordon/Gerstein). On the other hand, the military doesn’t have time to question an enemy like a terrorist, especially as a timer is winding down on a bomb. The military would need immediate answers to situations like these, and others such as enemy/terrorist groups or where hostages are being hidden. Thus, justifying why torture should be used for interrogation. Especially under circumstances when innocent lives of kids and families are in unknown danger. No one needs to go through the pain of seeing their loved one's life being taken away by unjustified

While the war on terrorism has required different strategies that were not utilized in other wars, the use of torture should not be included as new approach. The Geneva Conventions established protocols that ensured ethical treatment of prisoners because of the atrocities that happened in World War II. That being said, prisoners should be treated with respect, even if they are terrorists. Arthur Holmes (2007) states that, "It is an overall moral principle, all-inclusive and exceptionless, that should govern all of our actions"(p.54). Torture is never

Imagine there is a bomb under downtown New York City. You have captured the terrorist who planted it there and you have the ability to torture him and find out where the bomb is planted. Otherwise, there will be countless victims. So, is torture ethical? Torture is a topic that is largely debated among many countries and is one of the leading debates today. Torture is a problem because it is considered a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity. With terrorists on the loose everywhere what are we going to do? The debate on torture really began after the signing of the Geneva conventions in 1949 after there were discussions on the treatment of soldiers in other countries. The real issue now is that many terrorist organizations in the middle east that do not abide by the Geneva Conventions

In the discussion of torture, one controversial issue has been that torture could be used to save lives. On the one hand, torture is a good method that could save many lives. Others argue that it violates human rights. On the other hand, when torturing someone we could be given false information. Others even maintain the idea we should only use torture when dealing with terrorists. My own view is that torture should be used only by the military, and to get important information.