The Use Of Torture : Coercion And Intimiture, By Henry Shue

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

Let us begin with Michael Levin, whose thesis states, “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but not morally mandatory,” in the second

Torture and Democracy written by Darius M. Rejali, delves into the complexity of torture that exists and has existed throughout the world. Published in 2007 by Princeton University Press in New Jersey, the book is an excellent resource for not just educators but, students and individuals interested in political science alike. Torture and Democracy, ISBN: 978-0-691-14333-0, is priced at $48.43 on Amazon.com for a paperback edition. The book has 849 pages that include appendixes in the latter section for readers to review references, notes, index, and other pertinent information that may have needed further explanation throughout the text. Darius Rejali is an accredited professor of political science at Reed College located in Oregon (Rejali 2007). Through his exquisite work and evaluation of torture records, Rejali is recognized as an expert on modern torture internationally (Rejali 2007). In Torture and Democracy, Rejali develops his thesis that torture in democratic states are prevalent even though it seems nonexistent. He argues that through techniques that are performed in such a way that leaves no marks on the

“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. Levin cites different hypothetical situations in order to logically prove his argument. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to an understanding of the applications of his policy on torture. The examples he uses include a hypothetical terrorist attack on Manhattan and hospital robbery. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites lack strength due to their inapplicability to the current world. Equally important, in today’s terrorist centered climate, there is no room for Levin’s position on torture. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why torture is a valid form of punishment, because his assertions rely too heavily on the speculative, and are not contemporary enough for use in modern times.

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.

The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing a person for an act that he is suspected of having committed. Torture also includes intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when a person acting in an official capacity inflicts pain or suffering (Convention Against Torture para. 2). Although some people believe that torture is acceptable, in reality it is neither an acceptable nor a reliable method for obtaining information and should not be continued.

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.

The essay, “The Case of Torture” by Michael Levin, discusses when the use of torture on a terrorist is necessary. Levin provides scenarios of life changing events. In which he thinks torture would be the best method to save the lives of many. He attempts to convince the reader that torture is “morally mandatory” in our society.

Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.

This topic relating to the Death penalty crisis that is happening in the US has brought to attention the purpose of the constitution’s definition of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. To many US citizens, harsh interrogation methods on prisoners and war criminals has been believed to be one of the only methods to get confidential information from detainees when methods of negotiation and bargaining fail to convince the detainee. Not only is it in effect on US prisons with cases of conspiracy, murder, and other severe cases, but also overseas on war prisons like Guantanamo bay as well as other countries.

Water boarding, removal of limbs, drilling holes into the body, electric shock, and crucifixion. All of these are methods of a subject called torture, or the act of which one inflicts physical or psychological pain for purpose of degrading, intimidating, controlling, or getting information (“Torture”). Throughout history, these have all been reasons for torturing people; however, whether or not torture should still be allowed is a topic of debate. There is a long and detailed history of torture, along with numerous reasons people are tortured today, and survivors face a wide variety of mental and physical effects.

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.

One of the greatest violations of human rights is torture. Torture is not simple to define but the most generic definition is the execution of physical distress upon others through brutality and assault, for different reasons most of the time for extracting data or for a declaration of guilt, however sometimes it is for the delight of being sadistic. Jonathan Power describes it as “the systematized use of violence to inflict the maximum amount of pain in order to extract information, to break resistance, or simply to intimidate” (O’Bryne 2003, p.140). Torture is a very old process; however, it has evolved with the civilization. According to the great writer Victor Hugo “torture has ceased to exist”; however that is definitely not true since torture has become a notion that is sold and bought in a market (O’Bryne 2003, p.144). In the last hundred years, torment techniques have evolved into being more clinical, more specialized, torture gear have evolved into a product to be purchased and sold on the market, governments have traded tips on effective torment methods – entirely despite of the fact that torment has become banned as per international law. Humans for a few hundred thousand years existed without utilizing torment; just in the last couple of thousand has it turned into a weapon of state.

Under the United States spearheaded campaign on the global war on terror; much debate has come forth after the populous learned of the coercive methods employed by the various U.S intelligence agencies. This highly controversial topic came to fruition after the media broadcast precarious images of deprived terrorist detainees confined to the Guantanomo military compound in Cuba. The U.S where using a variety of “methods” to attain usable intelligence to better protect both the civilian populous, and Armed Forces service persons currently waging the war on terror. The question arises, is the means of torturing persons ethical in the moral, social and especially legal sense? Using a comparative analysis with both the United States common law system and Frances civil law system, I hope to conclude an effective answer. It is also imperative to comprehend historical, moral and social aspects of the use and effectiveness of torture.