Pretend it’s a regular Tuesday morning going through the usual routine: waking up, taking a shower, eating breakfast, and then in the background, there’s breaking news. A plane has crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Mesmerized, you stand by the television listening to newscasters discuss this ‘terrible accident.’ Then, seventeen minutes later, the South Tower was hit. It’s finally becoming clear that this was no accident. Well, this was the exact scene on the morning of September 11, 2001. Soon after, President George W. Bush sent the most powerful military in the world in a search for “those who were behind these evil acts.” President Bush pledged to “direct every took of intelligence, every …show more content…
Another problem with the use of torture is that in some cases, as in Abu Ghraib, it is done for the sheer entertainment of bored guards and not necessarily to accomplish any goal. What it all boils down to is that torture to extract intelligence from enemy combatants, whether it provides information beneficial to our national security or not, should not be used under any circumstances. First, let’s address this issue from a purely moral standpoint. Torture is wrong. There is no denying that fact. To put another human being through events or situations that may damage them for the rest of their lives is not right. Even if some are reluctant to have sympathy for enemy combatants, the truth is that torture also remains engrained in the memories of those committing the heinous acts. In a study done by the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS), it found that “increased exposure to combat was correlated with increased psychological trauma. Those findings are well known. But a lesser-known part of the study also looked at ‘abusive violence’ – including torture – and found that it, too, had a high correlation with PTSD” (Phillips). According to the American Psychological Association, PTSD, or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, is an anxiety problem that develops in some people after extremely traumatic events, such as combat, crime, an accident or natural disaster. What this study reveals is that, though we may think that there is only one victim
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
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).
Not only can torture do cruel things to the person receiving the affliction, but it can also affect the torturer. When a person gives torture, it damages the humanity of them, which means they will never be the same person again. When torture is used, the victim is treated as a “thing” rather than a person. The receiver is basically dehumanized to achieve the desires of the torturer. Although torture can be used to discover new information, it does not always work that way. Torture can cause inaccurate information to be provided due to the want for the torture to be finished with. In some cases, torture is not the
Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using
The use of torture as a strategy of war is as old as war itself. Torture serves a number of different functions. One of those functions is punishment for crimes committed, and torture is still used in this way to some degree. Another one of the functions of torture is to extract information or confessions. It is this type of torture that Alan Dershowitz and Ken Roth claim was, and still is, being used in the war against terrorism. Although torture violates the principles of the Geneva Convention, it is still used: "countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). The use of torture can be " as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). This stance echoes the official stance of the United States after September 11, when the White House claimed that torture may be "justified" (Priest and Smith). The argument is simple: if torturing one person leads to information that saes hundreds or thousands of lives, then it is worth it. "We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified").
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
In discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been if it is right to use torture to interrogate suspect terrorist (s) if they have information that can save civilian and military lives. On one hand, some argue that torture is never justified no matter what the situation is. On the other hand, some even contend that torture is a violation of our human rights. Others even maintain that it is ineffective and only causes more conflict. Some even think that it should be used as punishment to serious criminals such as murderers or rapist. My own view is, however, torture should never be used no matter what circumstance there may be even if there is a ticking time bomb. Torture used as a punishment to criminals is barbaric and should never be done. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and violates the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America; also, torture is not effective because captives will often break, and give the interrogators phony information just to stop the pain.
In this new day and age torture is a popular topic of controversial arguments on whether it should be permitted in certain circumstances and its efficiency. In my paper, a logical argument against torture will be presented as well as arguments of from those who support the use of torture. In this paper, I will ultimately defend the position against the use of torture because it not only inefficient, but it is ineffective in some cases
Research and case studies have concluded that once torture is approved, it is very difficult to monitor and contain. Torture has proven to not produce reliable information but it may persist in society as it provides a psychological need in times of great stress such as war. Specifically, it may reinforce the idea that the interrogator is in “control” of the situation and may be a possible way to “get back” at the enemy force. Although supporters argue that specific torture techniques extract vital information; it has been proven to actually increase the difficulty of extracting information. It is unknown to the full extent of how damaging mentally being tortured and the full toll it can take on a person’s
. .and we would have learned a great deal less without these techniques’”(Politico, “Should America Torture?, Gordon/Gerstein). Former official in the Bush administration even agreed to revert to torture for answers, saying that “..It works. One of the reasons assertive interrogation techniques have been used is because they work” (Politico, “Should America Torture?”, Gordon/Gerstein). On the other hand, the military doesn’t have time to question an enemy like a terrorist, especially as a timer is winding down on a bomb. The military would need immediate answers to situations like these, and others such as enemy/terrorist groups or where hostages are being hidden. Thus, justifying why torture should be used for interrogation. Especially under circumstances when innocent lives of kids and families are in unknown danger. No one needs to go through the pain of seeing their loved one's life being taken away by unjustified
When is torture justified? Scholars in social psychology, sociology, history, and even literature whose ideas would help clarify the use of dehumanization. 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
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.
Most people may believe that torture would betray the laws set out clear by our founding fathers. But it isn’t. This fact may surprise you, but it's true. The constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. And According to Antonin Scalia, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; ¨It unacceptable to torture someone after a lawful trial, but allowable to do it before or without one.” It may seem morally wrong, but it is logically sound.It is for you to decied, but when one of the proteceteres of our beloved consitution says it’s constituional then it is.
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 agreeing with the man the use of torture should not be as a punishment. Of course there are those like Beccaria, which bring up the point that those at are tortured will sometimes lie to stop the pain. He is incorrect in this situation, because it is not anyone that commits a crime that will be lightly to medium level torture. There is no water boarding torture, as in strapping a person on to a board and then pouring water on the person in a way that the people can actually can die, allowed to low to medium level threats, nor dry downing the person to tell the confess to a rape that they know the person did it but the person is holding back something.