To begin, the US and it’s central intelligence agency, also known as the CIA are torturing captives, and it’s up for debate. The US should allow the CIA to torture its prisoners. It’s a way to get very valuable information from them. The torture techniques leave no marks or traces left behind on the victim. It strikes fear in the to be tortured prisoners so that they make talk before the CIA even lays a finger on them. It is very difficult to get dangerous people to talk, so we use dangerous methods to get them to talk.
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
National terrorism has been the focus of attention since September 11 (Haubrich, 2006). Unfortunately, domestic terrorism is now becoming increasingly common with hate groups around our nation. Domestic terrorism can be defined as violent acts that someone has committed in their own country against their fellow citizens and infrastructures. Some examples of violent acts include violent crimes, (murder, assault, and etc.) property crimes, and public order crimes. It can also be a crime against the state or federal government, like for example the attack on the World Trade Centers and the infamous Oklahoma City bombing.
Do we recoil from torture because it treats a person only as a means to an end? It is a principled view that might account for our rational rejection of torture, but Kant’s Categorical Imperative is too much at variance with Anglo-American norms to explain the instinctive revulsion the practice commonly elicits. (As the death penalty illustrates, note that popularity does not contradict abhorrence.) In his paeans to torture, Dershowitz is merely echoing Bentham and, beyond it, the reigning utilitarianism of our time, which, from conditional welfare to advertising, routinely flouts Kantian ethics. And yet, is there a doubt that the wrongness of torture finds its source, not in a holy book or in the final link of a chain of observations, but deep in humanity’s moral intuition? On this we all
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.
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. Marzieh Ghiasi is a female Muslim college student who wrote a rebuttal to Levin 's Case for Torture where she uses logic to deconstruct his argument and prove that torture is not an acceptable practice. Both of their papers are good arguments and have great points to support them, but ultimately, I would say that Levin’s argument on torture being morally acceptable is the better argument. Levin uses many examples and devices to fill his article with Pathos as Ghiasi has a Logos approach but doesn’t have very many devices throughout her article to support her argument.
Dershowitz, he is the author of the essay "The Case for Torture Warrants". Dershowitz is more in favor of torture than Young and McCain. He believes that an authority figure should make the decision to torture and only torture if a warrant is issued. He also believes in non-lethal torture that makes people uncomfortable but does not harm the individual. In his essay, he gives the example of the Israeli security service torturing a suspected terrorist by placing a "smelly sack over his head and shake him violently" (Dershowitz 687). Dershowitz says that if a call needed to be made and a terrorist needed to be tortured in the case of a "ticking time bomb" that " We all agree that this should be a decision made at the highest level possible- by the president or the Secretary of Defense, if there is time to have such a dreadful decision made by accountable public figures" (Dershowitz
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
Levin believes it is efficient way to get information from terrorists. In his example of the atomic bomb in Manhattan, Levin makes the point that millions of lives are worth more than the life of the person who is causing the threat. He believes that torture should only be used to require information, not as a punishment for the already guilty. He also believes that the prisoner should be obviously guilty. When Levin asked the mothers if torture would be okay in the instance that they took their baby, would it be okay? All three agreed to torture. “We had better start thinking about this.”, shows that Levin is serious about using torture to help the American cause. In all Levin mainly supports that torture is okay when saving millions of lives. (Levin
Terrorism causes fear all across the world. People are terrified because of what happens in these attacks. There are many different kinds of fear caused by terrorist attacks. Some react to these attacks differently than others. Many react to these attacks in a constructive and rational matter, this helps to not give the terrorists what they want. If we can do this we can minimize these attacks across the world. So, are you with me? Will you help to minimize this problem?