Torture Is Necessary In Acts Of Terrorism

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

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.

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

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

The main reason why torture can be justified is that it is a means of preventing terrorism. As is states in the dictionary, the definition of terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for

People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.

Many opinions have been historically perceived on modern debates about the moral principles of torture. Torture has been carried out or sanctioned by individuals, groups, and states throughout history from ancient times to modern day, and forms of torture can vary greatly in duration from only a few minutes to several days or longer. (Torture, 2016). Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. (Torture, 2016). Now that we have an idea behind the meaning of torture, we need to know if it is ethical. Ethical can be described as fair, legitimate or moral. All and all, is torture the right thing to do? Let’s take a look at some of the reviews of those that are skilled professionals in discussing if it is just or permissible to use torture.

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 should never be used because people will just say what you want them to say to get you to stop.

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

Torture is not and should not be justified for national security because it is unfair , a violation of several human rights and just simply unhame .

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.

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.

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

To begin, torture is the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, both physically and mentally on a person for the purposes of gaining a confession, punishment, intimidation, discrimination, to please the torturer or others, to destroy opponents without killing them, or for any other purpose by a public official (Majima, 2012). Torture usually results in both physical and psychological consequences (Mark A. Costazo, 2009). According to the journal article by Mark Costanzo and Ellen Gerrity, “Torture has been used for thousands of years” (Mark A. Costazo, 2009). It is still used today throughout the world (Mark A. Costazo, 2009). Victims of torture are at the mercy of their torturers, requiring that the victim be unable to shield themselves, unable to escape, and unable to fight back (Sussman, 2005). The torturer is someone that can essentially do anything they would like to the victim without any resistance, both legally and physically (Sussman, 2005). The torturer also acts on his/her own behalf or the behalf of an agency based on desires of both the torturer and

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), and torment creep. The ticking bomb situation, which asks: If a terrorist has planted a bomb in a building full of people, and refuses to confess where the bomb is hidden, given that there is no time to search the building nor to get all the people out to safety, is it acceptable to torture the terrorist in order to obtain that information? (O’Bryne 2003, p.155). TBS advocates often lack the courtesy to grant the same