When the news of torture at Abu Ghraib prison broke in early 2004 during the “global war on terror,” much of the public was outraged and did not know how to react. Heavy debate began over the issue and media reporters on the issues took sides. Many books were written about the subject. The conservatives attempted to downsize the issues and take the side that it was simply ‘bored’ and ‘tense’ soldiers trying to blow off a little steam with horseplay. However, the photographs that surface said quite differently. Naked photographs of prisoners engaged in simulated sexual acts, deceased prisoners in sexual poses and prisoners tied up and left for dead tell the chilling story of the terror and torture behind the prison walls. Did the US do anything to stop or lessen such torture committed by American soldiers? Most will say that they did not. To some this may considered a crime and to others it is simply “common military practice”. What it comes down to is the debate about whether torture is morally acceptable even in times of war. Most of the publications on the subject were written ...
Szegedy-Maszak, Marianne. "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism." Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Custom, 2009. 210-12. Print.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
The United States Military Police guards tortured suspected terrorists and innocent Iraqi men and women in cells. Prisoners of both the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib were tortured and humiliated by taking pictures of them with bags over their heads, making them wear degrading clothes or no clothes at all, and having them perform sexual simulations with each other such as sodomy and fallattio. Zimbardo says that, “They began to do degrading activities like having them simulate sodomy.” (Zimbardo,15:37). Prisoners in both of the experiments experienced mental breakdowns due to physical, emotional, and mental torture. The prison guards and the military police were given permission to have authority over the prisoners by a more powerful figure and started to abuse their authority to the point of no
Baghdad, Iraq was the home on Abu Ghraib prison, where one of the most inhumane acts of soldiers against detainees took place. U.S. soldiers were guards at the prison during the Iraq war. While there the soldiers tortured, abused, and assaulted the detainees. These soldiers got so out of hand by having no supervision, no training, no accountability, fear, stress, head exhaustion and overall boredom. Photographs were taken of naked inmates. They were interrogated with non-muzzled dogs, physically harmed, forced to have sex with the soldier and other inhuman acts. Detainees were humiliated by the soldiers even after death.
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.
In 2003, numbers of United States soldiers abused and humiliated Iraqi individuals held at Abu Ghraib prison. Such incident parallels to Phillip Zimbado’s Stanford Prison Experiment in the 70’s where “guards” abused the “prisoners”.
In the opinion of this author, his argument is fair and includes the following strengths: that although torture is prohibited by a number of world declarations, it is so fundamental to international order that it does not need to be embodied in written credos; that simply masking “torture” as other words, does not render it legally justifiable and that by claiming necessity of the lesser of two evils, that torture does not necessarily lead to a betterment in the world; rather a deterioration. Possible pitfalls of his argument include a ignorance of the realist point of view by understanding the political and social needs of the nation at the time the memo was drafted as well as ...
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
Michael Levin’s The Case for Torture was a very strong and well-organized essay. Levin supports very good arguments about where torture can be validated in real life situations and can help save innocent lives. His use of emotional and logical appeals flow throughout his entire essay paired with the real life situations mentioned before. My goal is to analyze The Case for Torture and to highlight key points, positive and negative, in Michael Levin’s essay.
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
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.
The ongoing debate between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is, has been and always will be a hot controversial topic. Whether between different political views, cultures, world leaders or the citizens and society in general, the issue will always be of great importance. Some believe the two are the same, while others feel they differ. Either way, the methods and effectiveness are the major points for concern.
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 all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
Zimbardo, P.G. (2004, May, 25). Journalist interview re: Abu Ghraib prison abuses: Eleven answers to eleven questions. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford Univesity.