Torture and Global Implications Torturing of detainees or human beings has been prohibited as an international law; however there are many who use this method regardless. Globally, the torture of any detainee in any country is banned and considered cruel and inhumane. According to “Physicians for Human Rights” (2011), “Despite the absolute prohibition of torture in international law, it continues to be practiced in more than 100 countries, from totalitarian regimes to democracies. Countries frequently justify the use of torture as a necessary means to extract confessions, identify terrorists, and obtain intelligence critical to preventing future violence” (Global Anti-Torture). Although there is a ban on torture globally, there are many countries that continue to use this method and either justifies using this type of punishment or denying the fact of using it. There have been many questions and concerns that have raised. The Western Governments have undermined the global ban on torture by transferring their suspects to different countries who are known for torturing prisoners (“Human Rights Watch,” 2013). The use of torture has affected many, especially
When torturing the person is treated as a thing rather than a human being. Regardless the circumstances, torture is never the way to go. It violates individuals rights and dignity. There are plenty of other better ways to obtain information from suspected terrorists that is less tragic. People can be tortured for little to no apparent reason at all. Some individuals are brought up at an early age to believe that terrorist methods are correct and that they should fight for what they love. Torturing suspected terrorist means that you are taking an unnecessary chance in torturing the wrong person. New techniques must be established. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that cruel and unusual punishments should not be allowed. Torture is an act of violence that requires the use of many cruel and unusual punishments. When torturing no lessons are learned, no modesty gained and no moral principles are
Do you think torture should be allowed to gain information? Dictonary.com defines tortures as, the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. Even though torture can sometimes be used to reveal the truth, torture
Is it ever permissible to torture a person 2 Torture is a topic that everyone has thought about or talked about at some point in their life. Many states have made it illegal to torture another person and have found it to be unconstitutional to treat someone this way. I do not feel that torture should be used on anybody no matter what the crime they committed. No one should be treated with such disrespect and humiliation just so the other person can get what they want. Torture is used to inflict severe pain on someone to get them to do something they don’t want to do. It is inhumane treatment of human beings and is brutal.
Sometimes torture is appropriate and necessary in certain situations. Whether or not people admit it, torture was one of the main reasons that WW2 came to an end. One of the reasons D-Day happened is because of the intelligence of man named Abwehr who had information about beaches in Normandy (history.com) Some people are
Torture & Terror In a world where we allow torture as a tactic to extract information from supposed terrorists, we could potentially save lives of thousands of people. In a hypothetical situation where there is a terrorist group who have planted a bomb in a densely populated area and we capture one of the members of the group, do we not have an obligation to get the information in any means necessary? Should we not torture one terroristic individual to save the thousands of lives of innocent American civilians? Some people would argue that we shouldn’t for many reasons, including that torture doesn’t always produce information, let alone correct information. They may argue that innocent people could be tortured, and that we wouldn’t know if
There are very strong arguments that torture is a poor and unreliable vehicle for discovering truth, as the people being tortured are extremely likely to make anything up in order to stop the physical pain and can become unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction under extreme psychological distress. There is very little information or factual academic or medical research in favor of torture in the interrogation processes, and whether or not the information obtained using torture methods would ultimately prove to be valuable. There is a however a plethora of information regarding moral, constitutional and legal interrogation methods and specific guidelines for the interrogators to follow that have been in use for quite some time and have proved to be extremely beneficial. Numerous human rights organizations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders have absolutely rejected the idea that torture is legal or an acceptable and reliable form of intelligence gathering.
Can torture, the infliction of intolerable pain to extract potentially life-saving information from war criminals, ever be justified? What if this torture or activity is sanctioned or ordered by those in authority? Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, numerous reported incidents of torturing detainees by the United States have been covered in the media all over the world. The public first learned about the horrific actions of the United States when the truths of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Most Americans are shocked by those horrendous and disturbing photographs of the abuse of prisoners broadcasted. When the humiliation of Abu Ghraib surfaced, the US government argued that it was solely the work of a couple soldiers. However, the truth is that prisoner abuses have expanded with the soldiers knowing that it is possible for them to get away with such atrocious actions. Moreover, the use of torture by the United States is setting a bad example for the authoritarian regimes abroad, and sending out the wrong signal that torture is legitimate (Greenberg, 2009). It further damages United States' authority to act as international police to speak out against authoritarian regimes that are treating detainees in even less humane ways. Some government officials believe that life-saving torture is morally justified, because the lives of innocent people prevails the infliction of physical pains to criminals. Others reject torture as both unreliable and an insult to basic principles
Torture. No Place for it in Society? 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.
There are different forms of punishment that are available for people who cause harm to others. It becomes controversial when some of the punishments are used because they take two sides of the law. For instance, torture is punishable by law if the individual doing it has malicious grounds. This
Torture interrogation has been used throughout history, more so recently at Guantanamo Bay with suspected terrorists. The big question is, are the answers that are obtained through torture interrogation reliable, and whether torture is morally justified? The purpose of this document is to explain
Torture is a very abstract concept for individuals to grasp as there are many points of view and perspectives as to whether or not torture is acceptable in certain situations. For example, some may think that because someone is known to be a serial killer but unwilling to admit it, that it is justifiable to go to certain measures of force to get the individual to respond. On the other hand, some may think that there should be more patience in the officer and that tricking the killer into saying the truth would be more effective. It is clear that some methods of torture are definitely not accepted by the majority, however there are some kinds of torture that aren’t as “frowned upon” by the public. An example can be found in Alan Dershowitz work
Argument #2: Torture should not be legalized in any special circumstances. It is unconditionally rejected. The first reason whether there will not be a utilitarian motivation to make lawful special cases. There is no space for exemptions because of the two fundamental arguments to the issue: The Ticking Bomb Situation (TBS),
I believe torture is only morally permissible in extreme emergency situations. By extreme emergency situations I mean when there is a risk that hundreds of people will be killed if the victim does not provide certain information. In the ticking time bomb case, interrogators have tried all the acceptable methods to get the code to disarm the bomb and have failed to do so and hence it is morally permissible to torture the person to get the code otherwise we will be putting the lives of millions of people at risks. Also, some cases where torture would be morally permissible are where the torturer is hundred percent sure that the victim is the perpetrator and has significant information to bring about greater good. This victim can be a kidnapper, a bomber, a terrorist or even a secret service agent who is selling confidential information. I also believe that while torturing someone the degree of torture should not be too high and it should be in the knowledge of highest law authority. A medical practitioner should also be present while torturing a victim so that there should be no risk to the life of the perpetrator. As Henry Shue said that “An act of torture ought to remain illegal” and anyone has to justify in order defending himself/herself legally (Shue). I strongly believe that under any circumstance torture should not be legalized whether it is for
First, the particular situation of war justifies torture. Getting more information is important as much as win the battle. Essential information helps to predict the location where the enemy will drop the bombs or plan on genocide. And torture is an effective method to get reliable information from prisoners. War itself is against the ethics so once the war begins, every one has no choice not to be cruel for the victory of the country.