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.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
... middle of paper ...
...themselves interrogating. Often, people who are in such situations are trained and prepared to withstand the pain. This results in the inability to acquire any or little factual and useful information.
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
In Mary Rowlandson, “A Captivity Narrative”, Rowlandson recounts her experiences as a captive of the Wampanoag tribe. The tribe took captives from Lancaster in 1676 because of the ongoing violent altercations between the English colonists and Native Americans during King Philip’s War. Since many of the Native Americans brethren had fallen in battle, they saw it fit to take English folk captive and use them to take the place of their fallen brethren, trading/ransom pieces, or killing them in revenge. This was becoming a common practice for the Native Americans to attack villages and in result, some English started fleeing the area or started to retaliate. Rowlandson was a Puritan wife and mother, in her
Author Brian Knappenberger created this article do to his hatred for torture throughout the United States. Brian Knappenberger is an award-winning documentary filmmaker he has won Writers Guild of America Award for Best Documentary Screenplay.Knappenberger has directed and executive produced numerous other documentaries for the Discovery Channel, Bloomberg, and PBS. He owns and operates Luminant Media, a Los Angeles based production and post-production company. All together Brian Knappenberger show his firm beliefs and is a very intelligent man. Knappenberger is trying to address towards the United States government and citizens to give intel on his own thoughts towards torture. It clearly states how he is against the use of torture and states
In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin presents logical fallacies that originate at the authors desire to relate the importance of his message. Though his specific argument is a very plausible solution to a taboo problem, the manner in which he presents it has some fallacies that cause it to be unsupported
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 ...
Ann Rinaldi has written many books for young teenagers, she is an Award winning author who writes stories of American history and makes them become real to the readers. She has written many other books such as A Break with Charity, A Ride into Morning, and Cast two Shadows, etc. She was born in New York City on August 27, 1934. In 1979, at the age of 45, she finished her first book.
In discussion of torture, one controversial issue has been whether torture is effective and if it violates the human rights. On the one hand, some argue that torture is effective. Others even maintain that torture does not violate human rights. I disagree with allowing torture because in my view, torture is not effective, it violates the human rights, and undermines the effectiveness of interrogation methods.
Is torture in Guantanamo Bay Ethical? While it may seem like an easy question to answer our country is vastly divided on this subject. There are countless parts to consider in order to truly be confident when answering a question like this. The circumstances alone can sway philosophers to debate on whether or not torture is right or not. I personally feel that torture is an unnecessary evil that has remained the same for ages. Throughout this paper I will demonstrate what has lead me to this conclusion by applying the modern problem of Guantanamo Bay to the famous philosophical ideas of Martha Nussbaum and Jeremy Bentham.
In the face of terrorism, one of the most pressing moral issues is the use of torture as a means of extracting information. The essay, “A Case for Torture”, by philosopher Michael Levin, is a persuasive piece in which the writer incorporates a formal vocabulary, an informal point of view, and an informal/formal tone in order to make readers consider the validity and morality of the use of torture in dire situations.
Torture may seem like a barbaric and outdated way to deal with prisoners but according to Human Rights Watch.org torture was documented in the at least 16 different countries around the world. Although it is out and in the open that these countries perform torture on prisoners, there are many others that were caught still using torture like methods as a means of gaining valuable information. In war, no matter what war information is like a weapon. Information is a huge key to victory for either side on the battlefield, but what happens when the only way to get information from an enemy is by using methods like these that are seen as barbaric or evil such as torture, i believe sometimes things such as these are a unfortunate
In recent discussions on torture, a disputable issue has been whether torture is wrong. On one side of the argument, some people claim that torture is wrong in all situations no matter the circumstance. From this point of view, many people such as Philip B. Heymann believe that “the overall, longer-term cost of any system authorizing torture, openly or tacitly, would far outweigh its occasional, short term benefits” (536). Basically, the major long lasting effects that are a result of using torture are more drastic than the positive effects that are only interim. From a conflicting position, people are okay with torture being used in the means if innocent people are at risk. In the words of Michael Levin “there are situations in which torture is not
Using torture, even for the best of reasons, is wrong and should not be legal. Subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture, a detainee will tell the interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the actions of a few darken reputations in the eyes of millions and may lead to future conflict. Because of the deep psychological effects that torture has on people, prevention of torture is the main concern for anti-torture activists. Laws presented to combat torture policies are active, but despite this fact, the U.S. government still uses torture to obtain information that dictates its foreign policy. The reason that the U.S. entered Iraq was because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. What most people don’t know is that this information that stated there were nuclear weapons in Iraq, was obtained through the torture of a suspected terrorist (Sonderreger 1). When no weapons of mass destruction were found, it meant that countless lives were wasted on the premise that the information gathered by these torturers was correct. The inaccuracy of the information gathered through torture is shown in all forms of international conflict if it is investigated enough. Through the
Since the creation of the world torture has been in our societies. It is used as a way to get information from another using cruel methods. In some cases it has proven successful, but in even more cases it has shown that it can be inhuman and lead to receiving no information. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made to try and stop these tortures, but they are still happening.
Torture has been used to gather information, to intimidate or control people by intentionally inflicting physical or mental pain on a person without legal cause and, therefore, is considered as a moral unjustifiable act which dehumanized an individual and this deed should only be carried out if its grounds justifies the act of torturing someone.
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.