Rhetorical Analysis: The Case For Torture By Michael Levin

This research project will examine if the United States Government should revert back to torture in order to counter terrorism. It is an important area to research since terrorism is an ongoing problem worldwide and it effects humanity. I wanted to focus my research on three questions. Question one: what is the legal definition of torture. Question two: what are different forms of torture used to combat terrorism? Question three: is torture effective when countering terrorism? The United States definition is very broad compared to the United Nations definitions. Through the United States Senate report on torture, I was able to find out which torture techniques the United States used while torturing. These techniques included rectal feeding and rehydration, confinement in a box, the use of cold water,

Levin provides life threatening situations to speak out to those who are more strongly opinionated. In this instance Levin states that a terrorist has placed a bomb on an Island and is about to detonate it. The only way to prevent the detonation of the device is adherence to the demands that the terrorist provides (Levin 359). While analyzing the viewpoint and the tone of the writer, it is clear that he is afraid failure to follow the demands of the criminal would lead to the loss of many lives. He affirms that in his personal beliefs this case falls under the jurisdiction to torture such criminals, since it seems to be the only way to save the lives of the innocent. The author included these situations to appeal to emotion. This draws a broader audience to convince that his argument is

The first scene that these quandaries come to light is where General Geoffrey D. Miller, a specialist in interrogations, was sent to Abu Ghraib to help guards extract more information from the prisoners. The guards at the facility had been trained for years to follow every order they had been given, but this would mark the first time that the United States Army’s orders had directly conflicted with their personal convictions. This fact was stated by the soldiers themselves in the the interviews conducted afterwards. This type of obedience can be explained by Erich Fromm in his article, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”. Fromm states that there are two types of Obedience one that is submissive to an institution or power, and another which an affirmation of your own personal beliefs (Fromm 124). The guards that did not agree personally to the torturing of prisoners, but obeyed anyway, were participating in the act of Submissive Obedience, because the conscience they obeyed was not their own. The guards actions can also be explained by Philip G. Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment”. In Zimbardo’s experiment, many young men were given absolute power as guards over prisoners, much like the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. After given few directives and told to enforce the laws of the prison, the guards at the Stanford Prison took only 3 days to

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

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 discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been whether torture is an effective mean to gain information from terrorists. On the one hand, many people would argue that torture is a very effective mean to gain information. On the other hand, there is a large amount of people who contends that torture is not the only means to gain the same information. My own view is that there are better ways to gain information from terrorists other than torturing them. I disagree with torture being an effective mean to gain information because; as recent research has shown it can be ineffective.

Nick Flynn spends a large majority of his memoir, The Ticking is the Bomb, reflecting on both the Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004-2005 and his impending fatherhood, seemingly placing two incompatible ideas side by side. At first glance, the memoir seems disjointed and causes the reader to question why Flynn would choose to write about parenthood alongside depictions of torture. Close examination of the text, however, reveals Flynn’s complex and nuanced worldview. Flynn finds torture to be reprehensible, and a significant portion of the memoir is devoted to coming to terms with the fact that he had shaken hands with known torture-advocate Sam Harris. Perhaps he does not wish to raise his daughter in a world where scandals like Abu Ghraib

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

“Authorizing torture is a bad and dangerous idea that can easily be made to sound plausible.” This is a shockingly true statement. Heymann’s purpose in writing this article is to persuade readers to agree with him that torture should not be authorized. Heymann uses the persuasive appeal of pathos primarily in this article to convince his readers to agree with him. Although that is not to say he did not use other forms of persuasive appeal, heymann also used Logos and Ethos, just not as strongly as Pathos. After examining the article, heymann’s use of Pathos should be seen as effective at persuading his audience because of how he uses positive and negative emotions, writes clearly and applies vivid details.

I feel as if the pain that a criminal would feel from being tortured, without any moral or ethical considerations, is worth it if it saves a life that would otherwise be lost. One response to the Dirty Case is that interrogative torture, such as the technique used by the officer on the kidnapper, is not effective. Steinhoff argues that this is incorrect because sometimes the torturer does get what he is looking for as in the Dirty Harry case. To further defend against this response, Stein a One-Million-Pains-To-One-Kill-Gun argument. With this argument, essentially a person is being shot at by an aggressor and is eventually going to be hit unless they were to fire a gun with a 1 in 1 million chance of immediately stunning the aggressor to avoid being killed. The other 999,999 will not stun the aggressor quick enough so the assault victim will die and the assailant will suffer a lot of pain after the fact. Steinhoff argues that even though the chances of survival are only 1 in 1 million, someone would still take that chance even if the could cause pain to the assailant. Tying that into a scenario such as the Dirty Harry case, even though the chances of the kidnapper actually giving up the girls location are

Alan Dershowitz begins his article “ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured” by questioning whether one person can be tortured to save the lives of many others. Dershowitz displays both sides of the argument before shifting the question. Dershowitz asserts that the question is not if torture should be used on a ticking bomb terrorist, rather the question is whether the torture is done openly under a legal framework or secretly and illegally. He then simplifies the conflict to the prioritization of values. While the argument that Dershowitz constructs seems to leave very little room for disagreement, there are ways in which to collapse his entire premise. By broadening the argument, Dershowitz’s entire claim can be avoided.

Throughout his essay, Levin uses a formal vocabulary to give himself authority on speaking about a controversial topic such as torture. As most western democracies, the writer’s audience, outright ban torture and regard it as cruel, Levin

Dershowitz argues that there are two ways to deal with a ticking bomb terrorist, besides doing nothing and letting innocent people die. These options include continuing to torture behind closed door or to utilize torture and make this information open to the

How effective can torture be if terrorists are already willing to give up their lives? In the article, “The Case for Torture” Michael Levin claims that “there are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.” What is torture? Torture, by definition, is a knowing and intentional act of inflicting severe pain on someone to force them to do or say something. Levin describes how torture is the only way to prevent and extract information from terrorists.Many believe that being interrogated by American intelligence should not be a pleasant experience for enemy combatants such as terrorists.Levin presents torture as the only method to safeguard civilians,but this is a violation against human rights and inhumane.Although

According to Lyn Hunt, Author of ‘Inventing Human Rights’, once debates and arguments against torture and cruel punishment began to be commonplace,