The world should not sit down and ignore the blatant violation of basic human rights. Without human rights the world would be in total chaos. Yet torture, the most maleficent violation of human rights, continues to be used as a means of interrogation. Even here, in the United States of America, officials look to torture to get the information they need out of foreign prisoners of war. Torture, even under the direst conditions, should never be allowed for use. The act of torture should not be used under any circumstances as proven by its violation of international law, human rights, and the false information given by torture.
Torture, by law, is undoubtedly illegal. In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Pope). This vote, being unanimous, means that every country in the United Nations is subject to this law: including the United States. In authoritarian states, however, citizens who are ordered to partake in torture may argue that they are just being loyal citizens. Even in the United States, where freedom of speech is permitted, torture still prevails. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a controversy for years. The prison is used to house enemies of the state in custody until they are tried and/or confess. CIA interrogation tactics have been up for question in recent years. Much of the information on the off-shore prison is unknown to the public, even though the Freedom of Information Act was passed. The CIA would detain people without warning, calling it an "enforced disappearance." Thousands of pages, now public, testify that torture was used as an interrogation met...
... middle of paper ...
... Publishers, 2001. eBook.
Jayatunge, Ruwan M. "Psychological effects of Torture." Groundviews.org. Grounviews, 15 Apr 2010. Web. 10 Mar 2011. http://groundviews.org/2010/04/15/psychological-effects-of- torture/.
Pope, Kenneth S. "Torture." KS Pope. Academic Press, Oct 2001. Web. 1 Mar
2011. http://kspope.com/torvic/torture-abst.php.
Schell, Jonathan. "What is Wrong with Torture." Common Dreams. Jonathan Schell, 20 Jan
2005. Web. 28 Feb 2011. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-25.htm.
Siems, Larry. "Chapter 1- Origins." The Torture Report. American Civil Liberties Union , 16 Oct
2009. Web. 25 Feb 2011. http://www.thetorturereport.org/report/chapter-1-origins.
Strong, Susan C. "Torture Leads To Lies." AlterNet. AlterNet.org, 30 Nov 2007. Web. 3 Mar
2011. http://www.alternet.org/rights/69363/.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
Ross, Brian and Richard Esposito. “CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described.” 18 Nov. 2005. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Tortured prisoners give false information. One writer writes “Many survivors of torture report that they would have said anything to make the torture stop.” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006) Another says that “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop” (Andersen). The NY times reports that in 2002, A Syrian born Canadian named Maher Arar was stopped in an airport and was interrogated. He was later sent to a prison where he was beaten, tortured and questioned for the next 10 months of his life. To stop the punishment, he “admitted” to getting training in Afghanistan! A country he had never even been to. It was later discovered that everything that he confessed to was false, and was just a lie to stop the torture. Not only did you destroy someone’s life, but you also wasted taxpayer’s money! Imagine the amount of money wasted on getting planes to that area of Afghanistan where that guy was “trained” at. Or the amount of money that was used to fund this prison! Confessions made during torture are unreliable and are usually just statements to stop the torture.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or psychological pain, and/or injury to a person (or animal) usually to one who is physically restrained and is unable to defend against what is being done to them. It has ancient origins and still continues today. The torture debate is a controversial subject to modern society. Because it is such a complex subject, many debatable issues come from it. For example, many have debated whether torture is effective in obtaining the truth, affects the torturers, threatens the international standing of the United States, or undermines justice. Others include what qualifies as torture, or whether or not the United States should set an example by not torturing. The two opposing claims to this topic would be: (a) that torture should always be illegal because it is immoral and cruel and goes against the international treaties signed by the U.S. and torture and inhuman treatment, and (b) yes, torture is acceptable when needed. Why not do to terrorists what they are so good at doing to so many others?
In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it works efficiently.
Throughout the history of war, the United States, as well as other countries, have held and questioned their prisoners of war. The U.S. has used interrogation methods not fully questioned by its citizens until the last few decades. There is a difference between enhanced interrogation and torture. Those who are in favor say that it is a commendable way to retrieve information and has saved thousands of lives. Those who are against say enhanced interrogation is torture and is “a vile and depraved invasion of the rights and dignity of an individual” (Innes 6). Enhanced interrogation is an effective means of gathering information used to protect the lives of U.S. citizens (and others) and is not torture because it uses restrictive methods unlike torture which is motivated by malice.
In order to assess the morality of torture, one needs to define it. According to the Tokyo Declaration of 1975 torture is “the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason.” This definition’s generality severely limits harmless interrogations by police. The United Nations changed the definition to include severe physical suffering, deliberate intentions, and also added that the action cannot be part of a lawful sanction. The US later revised the definition “to include only the most extreme pain” in 200...
The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
Meltser, Michael. Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. New York: Random House, 1973.
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have all failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.