Imagine you are in a dark room, deprived of sunlight, sleep, and food. You are also beat every day in a enclosed room. This is described as torture, and the government (CIA) allows this just for answers to crimes that people may or may not have committed. Some results of torture are damaging to the body, not just physically, but also mentally. Several torture methods, like waterboarding or electrification, are used. It is not humane because the government has the technology for better interrogation methods, but they didn't use it. Torture can also lead to illnesses like P.T.S.D., which is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Therefore, torture should be banned because it damages the body physically and mentally, it isn’t humane, and it can lead to mental health issues.
The United States definition of torture is very broad and can be interpreted loosely. With the United States broad definition of torture, this leaves room for the technique to be abused and not used primarily to gather information to combat terrorism. It seems as though these methods were borrowed from some Hollywood movie during the mid-evil times. And evil they are!
Torture in national security is justifiable because it is a way of extracting important information
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 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.
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
These similarities aren’t by chance, or even unexpected. In fact, in a US military study quoted by Gawande, “almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returning from imprisonment in Vietnam, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered” (Gawande, 2009). Thus, it seems very clear that the psychological agony imposed by prolonged isolation in US prisons is frighteningly similar to the torture experienced by prisoners of war overseas. The United States has a long (if nuanced) history of condemning torture, and in a previous report to the UN, the US submitted that torture was “categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority” (Human Rights Watch, 2009).
In this paper I will discuss the issue of torture. More precisely, i will be looking at “The abolition of torture” by Sullivan and “The truth about torture: it’s time to be honest about doing a terrible thing” by Krauthammer. I will be arguing that Sullivan presents a better case than Krauthammer on the issue of whether a liberal democratic community ought to ever resort to torture, because i feel that Sullivan presents strong points and Krauthammer presents weak ones. I will begin by outlining the key points in Krauthammer’s argument, and then outline the points in Sullivan’s argument. I will then continue to outline why Sullivan’s argument are strong to the objection of torture in a liberal democratic community while also consider objections to my
In one study that was completed in March of 2016, it asked if torture could ever really be justifiable. From the results, 82% of Republicans agreed that torture is “often” or “sometimes” justified with the use of torture. On the other hand, 52% of Democrats agreed torture is justified. Along with more results, 65% of the following participants thought that there was going to be another terror attack in the U.S. With the use of torture, some claim that they would feel safer at large terminals like airports, bus stations, and public rallies. One elderly women by the name of Jo Ann Tieken at the ripe age of 71 states, “You’re dealing with people who don’t play by the rules. And I can’t see why we would want to tie our hands and take away options like waterboarding.” To help you better understand different interrogation tactics, waterboarding is a type of interrogation that puts the suspect on a large flat board and dumps large quantities of water over their air passages to simulate drowning. In most cases, this technic breaks the suspects breaking point and they then tell the officials what they want to know. Other tactics can be dehydration, and starvation at the certain point where suspects might break to give out this crucial
As stated by Dershowitz, “Under a simple-minded quantitative case utilitarianism, anything goes as long as the number of people tortured or killed does not exceed the number that would be saved.” (586) A Kantian theorist would argue against torturing suspected terrorists because not in all cases of suspected terrorist will be tortured. The Kant theory implies for the same thing to be done in all circumstances for it to be a universal law. For example, if people committed a crime they would be forced into jail, but that’s not the case some people are released by paying bail bond. As explained by Dershowitz in the case of the detention of Japanese-American citizens. They were not tortured openly, but in secret which as a Kantian theorist would argue that torture should have been done openly not only in secret. Dershowitz describes, “The detentions were done openly and with presidential accountability; torture would be done secretly, with official deniability.” (593) As Dershowitz statement determines that it does not abide by the Kant rule that in all circumstances the torture is
Governments have sworn to always protect their citizens, in order to achieve this protection governments rely on police, intelligence agencies and information gathering. These agencies are required to collect crucial information and need favorable laws and tools to achieve it; one of them is torture. Does the end justify the mean? After the capture of Al-Qaeda’s fanatics, former president of the United States, George W. Bush, praised the CIA for their achievement “We’re fortunate to have men and women who work hard at the CIA serving on our behalf”. On the other hand, the level of torture used in developed countries is considered acceptable in comparison with the level of torture used in under developed countries where there are no limits even if it reaches death. Society may argue that guilty deserve punishment. Nevertheless, some interrogators resort to extending beneficial offers to their detainees to avoid the use of torture such as witness protection also known as Witness Security Program (WITSEC) run by the department of justice that is intended to defend witnesses during their
Every single human being would be able to distinguish between right and wrong, compassion and outright brutality. In my opinion, those capable of performing torture on any living thing has a subconscious desire and affinity for doing so. I believe they enjoy it yet hide under the banner of a "necessary evil" and "for the greater good." Could you do it yourself? Then don 't suggest it for another person to have to inflict such violence. Torture is an unconventional interrogation technique that is far more effective than other interrogation techniques. Information is easily retrieved from individuals through torture. Nobody has the right to deliberately cause harm to another human with the intention of causing the maximum physical and emotional pain. It’s the most twisted, sadistic, cruel behaviour imaginable.
My topic of discussion for this paper is, is it ever permissible to torture a person? This argument will include both the main argument and the counter argument. This argument is meant to be inductive. In this finial paper, I will ultimately be defending the position against using torture because the use of torture is not only illegal, but it is not effective and it treats people as less to nothing. Torture is longed age practice and still so to this present day. The word torture has been fine toned into words like interrogation, just to hide its true meaning of evil. No matter how this word has been changed over the years, it still doesn’t make it right. Torture is intentionally inflicting severe pain and dehumanizing someone to gain information.
In today 's world, torture is considered an inhumane way to treat a human. Torturing should be banned because most of the time it is ineffective and immoral. Everyone has the Miranda Rights which states “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law”.
Is torture ethical? Torture is a controversial topic and has been at the center of discussion for decades past. Torture is defined as the “act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information” (Dictionary.com). In George Orwell’s, 1984 the government uses torture as a method of manipulation and paranoia on the citizens. Winston lives in a constant fear and cannot go a day without being paranoid about being turned in by the thought-police. I do not agree with torture, ast it is ineffective in most cases and morally wrong. People who are subjected to torture are trained to remain silent, no matter what the circumstances are. These people are literally willing to die for what they believe