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.
Where I disagree with torture is its inhumane and there are other means to gain the same information. It doesn’t make sense to gain the same information
…show more content…
Torture is mainly seen as morally wrong. The Los Angeles Times wrote about what the readers think about torture. In the article Torture is wrong: Readers agree, even if most Americans might not, discusses the opinions of their readers on how morally wrong torture can be even if it’s to a terrorist. One of the responses on the Los Angeles Times was from Martin Wauson of Westminster saying, “Injuring or killing an informant defeats the purpose of interrogation” (Los Angeles Times). The point of interrogating a terrorist is to gain information on what ever the problem may be. Just injuring or even killing the person will not gain the needed information. Many people can see that and find it inhumane and morally …show more content…
The terrorist may have done terrible things to deserve what they have coming from them, but their innocent family should not have to endure the after effects of what the terrorist has caused. In the article Horror in Mind- The Psychological Effects of Torture talks about how the children of the tortured parent can be born with terrible problems. “Children of tortured parents reveal more psychosomatic symptoms, headaches, depression, learning difficulties and aggressive behavior they manifest more severe ADHD, enuresis, and trauma related psychotic symptoms, developmental arrest or delays” (Horror in Mind). The torture should only be affected to the person who has committed the crime and not to the innocent family that has not done any wrong. They shouldn’t be punished because of one family members stupid
In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin argues that the use of torture as a way to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Levin draws a series of cases where torture might be acceptable so as to set certain precedent for the justification of torture in more realistic cases. HoweverLevin illustrates three cases where torture might be justifiable.he describes a terrorist keeping city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb, the second, a terrorist who has implanted remote bombs on a plane and the third, a terrorist who has kidnapped a baby. torture and its consequences have been recorded in countries around of world over a vast span of time, and for a variety of reasons. Levin makes no such attempt to expand his article beyond
Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove.
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. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
The Case for Torture Wins 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.
In medieval times, torture was used to punish criminals, deter crime, and gather information. There were many different types of tortures, most of which were brutal and painful. At the time, torture was deemed necessary to maintain order. Laws were harsh and torture was severe, but effective form of punishment. Despite its effectiveness, torture was often an unfair and extremely cruel punishment, and should have been eliminated in all forms.
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. Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie.
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.
Most of the time when someone is tortured it is because the interrogators are desperate for Important or valuable information. However, why would real “terrorist” give up valuable information that would expose their cause and what they believe in when they know they are going to die one way or the other. This just goes to show that the “suspected terrorist” are in fact suspected and aren’t real terrorist and shouldn’t be
The depiction of torture as the only form of interrogation hurts the
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.
In this movie we have dealt a very important issue that threatened the lives of millions in the United States. Torture is regarded as wrong for many reasons. If we look to it from another point of view we can conclude that: Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven. Torturing the terrorist is unethical, but in this circumstance it is the 'right thing to do'. Governments have used torture to keep themselves in power, to enforce their particular political philosophy, to remove opposition and to implement particular policies.
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. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
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.
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.
Enhanced interrogation techniques have been used on terrorist since 2002 when the George W. Bush administration issued the torture memos. Foreign terrorism has been a big problem sociologically, psychologically and has affected stakeholders while benefiting terrorist groups. Foreign terrorism has been a big problem sociologically in today 's world. Human society is becoming more lenient towards terrorism. Terrorism is very awful and these criminal should be treated different than an American citizen.