The Benefits Of Torture

To begin, the US and it’s central intelligence agency, also known as the CIA are torturing captives, and it’s up for debate. The US should allow the CIA to torture its prisoners. It’s a way to get very valuable information from them. The torture techniques leave no marks or traces left behind on the victim. It strikes fear in the to be tortured prisoners so that they make talk before the CIA even lays a finger on them. It is very difficult to get dangerous people to talk, so we use dangerous methods to get them to talk.

The goals of torture were to intimidate, deter, revenge or punish. Torture was also used as a tool or a method for the extraction of information or confessions. Torture was even used to satisfy personal hatred. Until the second century AD, torture was used only on slaves. A slave’s testimony was only valid if extracted by torture. Torture was used almost exclusively for the crime of treason. In civil society this meant in practice that torture was mainly confined to monarchs and the highest nobles. The penalty for treason by men was to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The penalty for woman traitors was to be burned at the stake. Torture was used for numerous reasons.

Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world.

2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).” Some may argue the terrorist is responsible for putting himself in a situation where torture would be the only answer (Mayerfeld 2008). This argument undermines the terrorist’s perspective. Ultimately, the terrorists believe what they are doing is right and have concrete reasoning for their actions (Mayerfeld

While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.

In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism. The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.

Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances. Marzieh Ghiasi is a female Muslim college student who wrote a rebuttal to Levin 's Case for Torture where she uses logic to deconstruct his argument and prove that torture is not an acceptable practice. Both of their papers are good arguments and have great points to support them, but ultimately, I would say that Levin’s argument on torture being morally acceptable is the better argument. Levin uses many examples and devices to fill his article with Pathos as Ghiasi has a Logos approach but doesn’t have very many devices throughout her article to support her argument.

Some would argue that using Enhanced Interrogation, is not morally and ethically right. There is another way to get information, but hurting someone or killing somebody is not the solution. There is another way to Enhanced Interrogation for example manipulation is a pain-free way to get an answer. Sometimes Enhanced Interrogation does not even work because detainee can give misleading information so that they will stop the pain. Sometimes our government detain an innocent person and then

In this essay, the author suggested that it is not quite black and white to determine if torture is right and wrong. There is space for arguments to determine to what extent torture can be accepted as the right choice of action and to what extent this is not applicable.

In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity.

4). Thomas Jefferson was not ok with that happening; Jefferson did not like the idea of torturing someone at all (Cole para. 5). All of the Founding Fathers, like George Mason and Patrick Henry, passed the Bill of Rights so that torturing an individual would be abolished (Cole para. 13). In the U.S. Constitution there is the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment means no excessive bail, and no cruel of unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment is supposed to ban post-sentencing torture (Cole para. 9). At Guantanamo Bay, which is a military base on American soil, the Eighth Amendment does not apply. One way they torture people is by depriving them of sleep. The torturers deprive them of sleep because sleep deprivation reduces the individual’s resistance of pain (“Torture” para. 4). Another way Guantanamo Bay tortures its people is by having the person watch someone else be tortured. It is said to have the same mental effects of actually being tortured (“Torture” para. 16). Now George Mason and Patrick Henry made sure that they made a Bill of Rights because they hated the idea of torture. It is quite obvious the Founding Fathers were against the idea of torture (Cole para. 15). They would be quite furious with Guantanamo Bay because they are breaking the U.S. Constitution because everyone has to follow the Constitution and Guantanamo Bay

In Defense of Torture “Because It Is Wrong:” A Meditation on Torture Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says

Anne Applebaum states “The really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe it works.” Applebaum is against the use of torture as she questions its effectiveness. America has operated under the false pretense that torture is a viable option for obtaining information. She argues that torture damages the country’s image and does little to acquire useful intelligence. Torture is merely a way for officers to take their anger and frustration out on detainees. It is not an effective way to gain information, as Col. Stuart Herrington states, “Nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no stress methods.” Col. Herrington is a counter intelligence officer that directed interrogations

The influence of the media makes people believe everything on television, which tarnishes the credibility of the U.S. government, its military and national security. Communication has been part of human life since the ancient Mesopotamia; it 's what people use to reach anyone and everywhere. Just like humans, communication has evolved throughout the time, from cave drawings to high technology wireless devices. Nowadays, the biggest fraction of communication is what is now called the media; it 's everywhere and on everyone. 24, just like any other television shows, utilize this apparatus to its full extent to gain their expected results; more viewership, and higher ratings. The depiction of torture as the only form of interrogation hurts the

Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie. "Erroneous Assumptions: Popular Belief in the Effectiveness of Torture Interrogation." Peace & Conflict 13.4 (2007): 429-435. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2016. As this article mentions many people do believe that torture works as nobody could resist the physical and mental torture people are put through. In reality most successful cases have been done by psychology experts using other methods. They used human knowledge and applied it to the interrogation.