Torture Is Torture

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

In “The Torture Myth”, the author, Anne Applebaum successfully uses logos by including quotes from various sources to support her main claim. Her main claim is the following: “Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.”(Applebaum) Throughout the piece, she provides several expert testimonies to enforce her claim. The situation of this writing is to clarify what society thinks the effectiveness of torture is compared to the reality. The target audience of this piece is educated people that read the Washington Post, but more specifically law enforcement personnel and or agencies that can possibly use this information in the field. The purpose of this article is to inform society about the misconceptions regarding torture. Although people think that torture is an effective method, because of Applebaum's successful use of logos, diction, and repetition, it is understood that torture is ultimately self-defeating and self-destructive.

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

Levin, Michael. “The Case of Torture.” Evergreen, 9th ed. Susan Fawcett. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 438-441.

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

Should Interrogation Techniques That Some Consider Torture, Such as Waterboarding, Be a Legal Option? This has been a controversial issue for a long time, the fact that it’s supported by some and others not so much has also been debated. Hillary clinton does not support this, where as Donald Trump is in agreement with it. Also Should the United States Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS? The war in the middle east is still alive and raging on, and the U.S involvement is an often discussed issue. Should we or shouldn't we be over there? These are both good question in which we will discuss. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have almost opposite opinions everything.

With that said, while we are adamantly against torture, it is arguable that Canada does employ torture techniques. To clarify, currently every day, there are 850 offenders or roughly 6% of the Canadian prison population in solitary confinement (Kelshall, 2014, p.1345). While there are arguments that can be made on whether solitary confinement is torture or not, it is undeniable with the literature available that the form of punishment has the potential to cause permanent or long term psychological damage (Kelshall, 2014, p.1345), a claim reaffirmed by the correctional investigator in 2011. In his report, the investigator found that solitary confinement may cause irreversible psychological harm and elevate the likelihood of anxiety, depress,

From the perspective of someone like Kant who believes that morality is absolute and torture is wrong, then it is never acceptable no matter what the consequences. Kant would argue that it is better to allow a 'ticking bomb' to go off and kill thousands by not using torture than to willingly torture someone, because as mere mortals we can never know for certain what the ultimate results of our actions will be - there may not be a bomb at all, or the man you have may not be the one who set it, or someone else may disarm it - but we can be certain of our intent, and thus we should never act with evil intent, which wilful torture certainly is.

The author Allen S. Keller, M.D., is the director of the Bellevue Hospital Center and belongs to the member’s advisory council on human rights. (p.558) He is well known for his advocacy on the various use of torture tactics used on Iraqi prisoners and other refuges. During a Congressional meeting Mr. Keller stated "To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [in which Keller included waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience." (“CNN”, 2007)

Waterboarding is a form of water torture which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of a restrained captive that causes the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.

In Hitchens’s story, the majority of his detail is dedicated to his personal experience. Hitchens was brave enough to actually forbearance the torture of waterboarding. “I was very gentle yet firmly grabbed from behind, pulled to my feet, pinioned by my wrist (which were then cuffed to a belt), and cut off from sunlight by having a black hood pulled over my face.” (Hitchens, page 617). At this time, the trained men are starting to put Hitchens in the first steps of the torture. “Arms already lost to me, I wasn’t able to flail as I pushed onto a sloping board and positioned with my head lower than my heart.” (Hitchens, page 617).  Hitchens has been placed into position to where he cannot move, or try to fight the integrator’s, to start the torturing. This is when the water starts getting poured onto his face. The fear of drowning is an understatement when it comes to water boarding, because drowning is actually taking place. He began to hold is breath, for as long as he could, before having to exhale. With exhaling comes inhaling, and when he inhaled, the hood pulled over his face began to suction to his face. “The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face.” (Hitchens, page 618). Basically, what he is saying is that the suctioning of the hood is making it even harder to attempt to breath. With all of this being said, Hitchens did not last long before using the pre-arranged