"Why Not Everyone Is A Torturer" By Oliver Behrensdorff Essay

Applebaum's second argument for eliminating the torture policy is that it constantly enables the enemy to build tolerance for the torture. Applebaum uses the example of “radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” This example clearly illustrates the fault within the misconception that torture is ultimately effective. There can also be unnoticed and lasting consequences to torture, that in turn, affect more than the individual country. The global stigma that is labeled upon any country that participates in or allows the torture of wartime prisoners is remarkably important. The public and self image that the respective country acquires, affects

In both of these situations, Levin appeals to the emotion of fear to justify using torture for the greater good, even if it defies a person’s constitutional rights. Presenting the case of millions of lives terrorized by an atomic bomb threat, Levin claims torture is the only resolution if, somehow, the terrorist “is caught [two hours before detonation], but … won’t disclose where the bomb is” (Levin). The author defends torture in this hyperbolic and unrealistic example to set a precedent for the justification of more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. He uses a flawed and weak

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

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.

In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.

During the Iraq war that between 2003 and 2006, the united states army committed a series of human rights violations against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Bagdad. The violations included murder, sexual and physical abuse, rape, torturer, sodomy, humiliating and dehumanizing prisoners. In 2004 the abuse that was carried out was exposed by the publication of images that were taken by the soldiers that carried out the violations. This paper will be looking at what social psychology can teach us about what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

tudied and observed and their behavior was measured with several methods. The results that the researchers found were fascinating. A breakdown of ethics and moral were almost instantaneous. The group with the power would come to abuse it and the group who had had their power taken away had become docile and submissive. The researchers concluded that the penal systems a whole was flawed in its ways of action and application of the treatment of its inmates and in the training of its guards. They also concluded that the psychology breakdown in this confined and control experiment was crucial in understanding the human psyche and how it handles certain situations.

Throughout the Holocaust torture was used by many Nazis in order to get the Jewish prisoners to do something or give information. Torture has always been an element of Fascism, and Amery argues that “...torture was not an accidental quality of this Third Reich, but its essence”. He continues to even say that if torture were removed from Fascism, there would be nothing left. In Hitler’s Germany, Nazis tortured for information, “but in addition they tortured with good conscience of depravity”, meaning they were aware of the moral corruption it was causing, all in all “they tortured because they were torturers”. Nazis purposefully placed torture in their ways, but became

The Stanford Prison Experiment was to determine how conformity and obedience could result in people behaving in ways that are counter to how they would at on their own. The main goal of the experiment was to see how social norms and social convections might influence the behavior of participants who are playing the roles of prisoners and prison guards. The study really elaborates on the relationship between the abuser and the abused. It is interesting to see how easily the human psyche gives repetitive abuse and is conditioned to receive it and accept it. This paper will discuss the motives, procedures, findings, ethical issues, and informed consent the Stanford Prison Experiment concluded on.

The history of torture in Europe may seem at first to be a steady progression of barbarous tactics, leading from one social purge to the next, but this is not completely the case. Torture has been used in a progression from primitive methods to the present more modern styles. It has also developed extensively, both in severity and variety of methods used. But in the end, torture has gone full circle; modern forms of torture are more like those methods used by savages than anything in between. Overall, the severity of torture has fluctuated, growing and receding with the passing of each new time period, but eventually reverting to its original state.

This paper serves to summarize The Zimbardo Prison Experiment, better known as The Stanford Prison Experiment which was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of the study was to conduct research in order to better understand the psychological components of human aggression and submission to include conformity and obedience in a prison environment with a select group of subjects playing roles as either prison guards or inmates, however, I should note, according to McLeod, S. (2016), The Navy’s intent or purpose for the experiment was to better understand how to train members of the armed forces on how to cope with stress associated with captivity as opposed to making American Prison systems more humane. Another interesting point of note is that Zimbardo conducted this experiment shortly after World War II, and the Vietnam War where concern was raised as to some of the atrocities carried out in those wars where “ordinary” people conducted heinous acts per instruction from so-called authoritative figures. Experiments with similar objectives were carried out by Stanley Milgram and others. (Jones, A. D., & Milgram, S. 1974)

The “dehumanization” of one’s victims does wonders to calm any qualms or misgivings an individual may experience about injuring another man. By evoking fear in the torturer and therefore, a sense of being threatened by a given enemy, the regime in power causes the torturer to feel obliged to defend against such a threat. Consequently, he will torture his fellow man to procure some valued piece of information and in doing so remove himself from a precarious position and subdue his enemies all at once. Such enemies are viewed as evil and little more than monsters. A victim is rarely referred to by his or her name or by any other humanizing characteristic, rather a victim is most often referred to as some base, nonhuman creature or beast.

The atrocity of acts committed by mankind throughout history demonstrates the dangerous results when society is unable to restrain the natural evil present in human beings. The words ‘humane’, and ‘civilized’, both come from roots that describe society. Their positive connotations associate humankind with an inherent morality. But it is hard to have faith in our race when throughout history; we have brutalized each other in such barbaric ways. How can independently thinking, emotionally compassionate beings take part in massacres like the killings at Columbine or in the terrorist attacks in 2001? The September 11th bombings took thousands of innocent lives, and struck fear into the hearts of millions. What shocked the observing world though, was not the number of dead. It was the senselessness of the cause, the raw savagery of the attacks, the utter lack of humanity. It begged the question: what happens when the moderating hand of society fails to restrain a group of radicals? The answer was simple. We saw the innate evil present in each one of us, in its undistilled, uncensored form. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were disillusioned bullies- torn away from society’s expectations through a combination of violence tendencies and psychosis. Their horrific acts were a result of their innate evil nature breaking through the wall of societal structure. Golding’s contention was that in most cases, rules were forced