Torture In Zero Dark Thirty

In the present torture is used for interrogation purposes all across the globe. Whether torture is used upon leaders of a notorious corrupt organizations or low-ranking terrorists, it is consistently justified through the fact that many lives are saved. One example is the capture and assassination of the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist group, Osama bin Laden. Dick Cheney, the former United States vice-president, had stated that the al-Qaida leaders were captured and interrogated through torture. He continued to state that if it were not for information obtained through the use of torture during their interrogations, Osama bin Laden would not have been found and assassinated. Cheney noted that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, a leader of the al-Qaida terrorist group, gave up vital information through torture in regard to the capture of Osama bin Laden. Dick Cheney states that waterboarding torture "helped produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden". Osama bin Laden had been responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and many other schemes that took the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Bin Laden had to be stopped at any means necessary because as long as he was still alive there was always the possibility of a large scale terrorist attack. The torture used in the interrogation of the al-Qaida members is justifiable because it helped to remove a potential threat against many innocent civilians. If it were not for the use of torture we may have never caught Osama bin Laden to this day and we could have had another 9/11

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the American people were scared. As a result, the U.S. government wanted to ensure that any possible threat to the United States by terrorists would be stopped before a tragic event like the attacks on the World Trade Center could be repeated. Detainees with ties to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, for example, who were suspected of having key intelligence of a possible future attack would be interrogated. The manner in which these detainees were interrogated is the center of controversy as they used tactics that many would argue is torture. These methods became known as enhanced interrogation techniques. This paper will strive to answer whether enhanced interrogation techniques are actually

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.

The act of torture is meant to humiliate and harm a life until the person instilling the pain gets what they want out of the person. This act violates the laws of humanity, and is nothing more than cruel and unusual punishment. Studies show that torture can cause actual damage to the memory of the person it is done to. (Cooper) This discovery makes it clear that torture not only causes physical and mental damage, but also the information taken from it has likely been altered. Torture benefits neither the victim, nor the instigator, because, unless he is some sort of sociopath, no one enjoys inflicting pain on other human beings. The tactic of torture is also very immoral, because it goes against the basic principle that you should not do wrong onto others. One could also incorporate the wise proverb that, “you can not fight fire with fire,” because it is basically saying there is no need for retaliation, even if others have done wrong. An example of this would be to not lash back at those who cause you harm. This basic concept of actions causing consequences can be taken to a much larger scale, and can also be intertwined back into the topic of torture. Take for example how Al Qaeda had been causing harm and then how the United States of America stepped in and began interrogating these people using different forms of torture in hopes of stopping them. Although it did help somewhat, it has

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.

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 is a very sensitive and well-debated topic post 9/11, and the fight on terrorism faced by the U.S. and in many cases the whole world. Torture is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something.” So this crucial and well-debated question has many opinions and sides to it.

Torture isn't necessarily unconstitutional, but it does bar cruel and unusual punishment. The United States Constitution says nothing about torture, but does that make it right? People view torture as more an appealing way to punish the victim helping the ethos of the viewer but doesn’t appeal to reason or effectiveness. Torture is wrong and is no longer should be looked at as a way as interrogation.

Using Torture as a useful interrogation tool for particularly heinous crimes like rape, child molestation, murders, etc. is okay because sometimes information is more important than morals, everybody learns from the situation, and they deserve it; especially if they’re proven guilty.

Within this deductive essay, both sides of the issue at hand will be argued. Any information obtained and expressed throughout this essay will support my stance as to why any form of torture is not the safest nor the most reliable method, to use as a source to obtain reliable, actionable information. And why it is not permissible to use torture as a justifiable judicial means of punishment or information extraction but the possible use of

In today’s world, there is an overwhelming call for drastic measures in response to issues involving national security and terrorism. For these reasons, acts of torture are often considered a potential and partial resolution to the ideological conflict between western life and extremism in the middle east. This mode of thinking follows the logic that torture is an effective means of gaining vital information for our security. This logic however is flawed and misinformed. All acts of torture are simply unwarranted in that they have no legitimate justification behind them. In fact, the use of torture is perhaps one of the most ineffective and immoral means of gathering intelligence, in that it yields factually undeterminable information, has overwhelming costs and impacts, and is inhumane in its means of execution.

Torture now, is looked as an old and brutal way of treating someone, in spite of origin, public standing, or any criminal acts carried out; it has remained for ages. Torture is frequently used to discipline, to get facts or a confession, to get payback on an individual/individuals or to generate intense fear within the public. Moreover, it may perhaps be just pure evil or dislike for that specific person. Some of the most generally known ways of torture consist of beating, sexual assault, suffocating, burns, raping and etc. It is morally wrong to torture because it violates the human rights and dignity, and treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves, however it may beneficial.

In order to fully comprehend if the United States use of “enhanced interrogation methods” are torture one must first have an understanding as to what torture is as defined by international law. The United Nations, an international policing force, defines torture as “(United Nations, 1984) 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. The most important aspect to take from the definition is the use of “severe” when describing physical and mental pain or suffering. This use of wording ensures nations a way to extract information from suspected enemies using less favorable techniques while still maintaining international law. The topics discussed will be focusing on techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the United States Armed Forces, all three of which have preferred techniques when in interrogation. Each technique will be dissected from a position both for and against

Is torture ever justified? Scholars in social psychology, sociology, history, and even literature whose ideas would help clarify the use of torture. Torture and dehumanization dates back centuries along the colonial era. George J Annas’ Post-9/11 Torture at CIA “Black Sites”- Physicians and Lawyers Working Together” uncovers the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report and it’s hidden injustice. Charles B. Strozier’s Torture, War, and the Culture of Fear After 9/11 insist that torture has its tactical benefits, however it is inhumane and ethically wrong. "Trump Says 'Torture Works,' Backs Waterboarding and 'Much Worse” by Johnson Jenna reports on Trump and his support of torture. "Torture as an Absolute Wrong” by Jacob Sullum suggest that

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.