10 Feb. 2016. In this article the author asks the question as to whether torture is a viable source in getting information. Since there is other moral ways of getting information. Some of these methods have shown to be more efficient. They also leave the victim’s mind intact.
George Galloway once said “ Anyone will say anything under torture”. Torture is used in different ways, But mostly torture is used to gather information from someone that is believed to be involved in a terrorist act. So I think torture should be legal to use when needing to get information although I think there should be precautions to take before you torture. Everyday there could be torture going on in the government secretly on many people because these people are believed to have information on terrorism or terrorist attack. A professor at Harvard Law school Alan M. Dershowitz said “ A carefully designed judicial procedure is more likely to reduce the amount of torture actually conducted, by creating accountability and a
14). Using torture as a way to extract evidence is an inhumane way to treat those under accusation.The argument that a confession given under these circumstances is legitimate, is a false claim. This is due to the victim's mindset being compromised from the extreme and extensive methods of torture. Another example of the unacceptable evidence used in court against those accused is the presence of the “devil’s mark”. “The belief was that the devil branded the bodies of witches with symbolic yet concrete corporeal malformations such as marks and growths” (Darr, 361).
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. Physical torture is pressuring
Evidence proved this with the publicity of the Abu Ghraib incident, where many inmates were tortured by United States soldiers. These soldiers were convicted for their crimes but it was taken care of “in house” as people would say. The United Nations did not persecute the said soldiers further than the United States military court, nor did they investigate the claims of the soldiers that they were under orders. Although the United States used torture to great effect in the past, torture is cruel, inhumane, and has no place in modern society. Torture is cruel, it leaves the victims devastated both physically and mentally.
The downfall of Winston begins at this point, any heroic signs that had begun to sprout out of Winston were utterly destroyed. He went back to his old ways of only looking out for himself. The qualities of a typical hero once again vanished. Winston was tortured so much that he ratted out Julia and confessed everything. He even said he’d rather Julia be tortured and die than himself.
If given the chance to save hundreds from a terrorist attack and all one had to do was carry out torture, would they do it? What if a young child was kidnapped and the police wanted permission to torture the kidnapper, would permission be granted? In “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin, he explains that torture is sometimes necessary. I agree that torture could be necessary depending on the situation at hand. Levin explains that torture can be morally mandatory, justified, and can prevent future evils.
Throughout the entire book, Winston claimed his hatred toward big brother and acted out in direct rebellion. By the time he was released from torture, he stated that, “He had won the victory over himself. He loved big brother”(Orwell 298). The Party’s use of torture ended up being enough to change the entire base of his morals, and removed his love for independence and rebellion. They conquered his real feelings, and were able to keep control over him in the end.
Many say no torture because they fear it would “corrupt democratic institutions, diminish our moral authority in the world, cause torture to become routine and widespread in society, and arouse worldwide resentment and anger towards us” (688). They would say that torture is not morally permissible, and does not truly work. A non-consequentialist might believe that torture disregards human life, and is disrespectful, no matter what the other has done. They would say that the answer to torture “is an absolutist no - torture is the use of a person merely as a means, a clear instance of a lack of respect for a human being. Torture is therefore always wrong” (687).
For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990. In addition, he informs the reader about a CIA Detention and Interrogation Program which was a study that proved interrogation techniques were not effective. This is important because he uses many statistics and poll results to back up his argument. He also mentions a poll that was