The Utilitarian approach to terrorism and torture asks to “choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm” and provide “the greatest good” for the innocent and the masses (Velasquez, et al. 1996). In the case of terrorist attacks and mass murders officials must know what lengths they are willing to go to protect their people and the rest of the world. The war on terrorism is one that The United States has been dedicated to fighting since the attacks of 9/11. Our focus needs to be on stopping the individual terrorists of the world and finding the information we need in order to ultimately end these attacks on civilization and this war on terror. In search for a greater outcome for everyone affected, our government officials have to be willing to do everything in their power to protect the masses. The amount of interrogation and torture that officials need to gain terrorist’s information should be established to protect the possible victims and their rights in any
A signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, the United States “does not torture.” Yet abundant evidence indicates that it does, directly or by proxy—and in fact always has. An old American tradition of state-sponsored torture even has its own lexicon: SOA, Kubark, Phoenix, MK-Ultra, rendition, CIA’s “no-touch” paradigm, etc. It is quite popular, too. Torture enjoys more than twice the public support in the US that it does in France, Spain, and the UK. One of the most watched TV dramas, 24, is but an extended ode to the glories of torture. The former director of a prominent human rights center at Harvard writes of the judicious use of sleep deprivation, hooding, and targeted assassinations; he concedes the government’s need to “traffic
The moment that the Twin Towers fell in New York, America became destined for change. In the wake of these attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was quickly passed through congress, and signed by then-president, George W. Bush. The act itself gives the FBI and other government agencies the ability to do and use certain methods, many of which are already used by other law enforcement organizations, to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since then, this piece of legislation has been the center of much debate and controversy. But, there is ample reason to believe that the Patriot Act is needed and effective. The Patriot Act has been used effectively because it has extensive supervision, is completely constitutional, and has helped to protect
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.
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.
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
To be specific, after terrible incident occurred in September 11, 2001, government of United States enacted the Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 in the name of declaring war with terrorism. (위키피디아) The law grants the right to Federal Bureau of Investigation to profile people who fit certain stereotypes so that potential crime and potential terror can be prevented.
“Brown Note” Myth Busters. Discovery channel. Artarmon 16 Feb. 2005. Television. In this episode they test one way of torture. It was more based on mental resistance as it didn’t inflict physical pain. It shows that one mental health has a lot to do with how effective torture is. Somebody who is used to stress should be able to resist longer than somebody who isn’t.
Lipset (1997, p.26) expresses American exceptionalism as “a two-edged phenomenon” in U.S. domestic politics; and the same applies to foreign policy. As national identity, American exceptionalism explains U.S. foreign policy and policy-making throughout its history (Restad, 2012). Accordingly, it has appeared in political arguments in various ways; not a few previous presidents had explicitly or implicitly expressed their belief in American exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan’s belief in ‘a shining city on a Hill’ based on a bible and “the last best hope of man on earth” are one of the most famous examples (Reagan, cited in Davis and Lynn-Jones, 1987, p.21). People might speak out American exceptionalism only because they believe in it, however, when
According to the 2010 Gallup Poll, 64% of the United State of America are supporting the death penalty, I as an American am part of that 36% that is against it. I do not believe that we as human being should determine whether another person should live or die. A second reason that I am against the death penalty is for the reason that the accused person could be innocent and normally the accused person only has one court presentation and is only judged by the judge not a jury of their peer, and is sent to death row where they pay for a crime that they haven’t done. My final reason that i do not believe that the death penalty should count as a punishment for the American people is because, a person that has done a massive massacre shouldn’t just be able to leave the world just like that without paying and suffering for what they have done, Or should the death punishment continue as it is for it has a great benefit to us as citizens of the United States. Will you stand with us or against us?