Even though torturing prisoners is morally wrong, torturing of prisoners is necessary because of the war on terrorism. And will help prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and also help in saving the countless lives lost when these attacks occur. Although some disagree with torturing prisoners. They all agree that terrorism and the lives lost to terrorism should be prevented but at what cost.
Torturing of prisoners is necessary and one of the most used procedures of interrogation in the war on terrorism. Although some feel this method of interrogation is extreme it has been used for hundreds of years. And has been a key tool in the prevention of terrorist attacks. Since the 1970s the government gave the name terrorism to the acts committed against the country. And terrorists the name of the people committing these acts of violence. The prevention of the lives lost to terrorism is the most important concern when it comes to using torture to get information from the prisoners. Prisoners may give valuable information on an attack which may be prevented. Which may not have ...
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information of a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in
When Hitler and the Nazi Party first entered power, they proposed strict and unimaginably radical policies. Their goal as the dominant political power was to create a “pure” German society. The idea of a “pure” German society stemmed from the idea that certain racial groups and ethnicities were undesirable and inferior. With that in mind, they sought to completely eliminate, through annihilation tactics, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, biracial children, handicapped citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any other individual(s) who opposed their radical ideologies. However, the most questionable part of these tactics was how and why the Nazis chose them. Of the many ways dictators and corrupt governments had tortured their citizens in the past, why was Hitler determined that the Einsatzgruppen, ghettos, and concentration camps were going to be the methods of choice to mass murder the Jewish people. Robert Payne notes in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler that Hitler was not satisfied with a gruesome murder of the Jewish race. He preferred them to die in agony and complete humiliation. Methods of mass murder such as killing squads (the Einsatzgruppen), ghettos, and concentration camps proved themselves as the perfect final solution. These tactics would exterminate Jews at an increasing rate while removing them of their respectable status.
that the Iraqis had taken; even if they were to be proved to be fake,
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
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.
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
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.
Because of the 9/11 terrorist, the U.S. have been able to limit the outcomes they produce by using physical and mental torture against their emotional torture they used on the Citizens. Its not the U.S. that started this battle over the use of torture, america had to protect itself from further hurt. “The suffering caused by the terrorists is the real torture (Jean-Marie Le Pen).” people argue that torture it is an inhumane act to deliberately beat a victim physically and mentally. The problem is that there are no other possible solutions to obtain information that are as effective as torture on such events other than force it out of them by using torture as their primary weapon (The Legal Prohibition). If the U.S. wants to pursue the safety of americans they have to take actions, As long as there are no bombs going off around the world, the U.S. will continue to use torture . Terrorism has become a much greater threat than before. regardless if the beating are too extreme, it is still the duty of the state to protect its citizens (Torture Is Just Means). Even if the interoges are suffering from severe torture, the U.S. is able t...
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
A contentious issue in current debate is the death penalty and its application in society. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, occurs when a individual is punished by execution as a consequence of an offence they committed (Taylor, 2014). Although Australia does not practice the death penalty, many countries continue to employ it as a means of justice and uphold its value in society. The death penalty debate is a multifaceted issue, encompassing many aspects of society including ethics and morality, the judicial system, and politics and the economy. It will be argued that the death penalty is a morally dubious and obsolete practice that is no longer relevant in modern judiciary, as it breaches the inviolable human right to life. Ethics and morality are primary arguments for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, as some individuals believe that the death penalty is a immoral practice and others consider that it can be morally justified when prolific crimes are committed. Punishment is fundamental element to any legal system as a means of justice and ensuing that the offender is unable to commit additional crimes; however, in the case of the death penalty there can be dire consequences if the legal system is wrong. Politics and the economy are also greatly influenced by the death penalty as they determine if the practice is maintained. The death penalty breaches a number of human rights laws and some individuals support that it is immoral; however, others consider it to be justifiable due to the heinous actions of the offender.
...less outside of intimidation. Currently we are debating whether torture would be a useful tool in society, but some have solved the answer for us many years ago. Those who commit crimes are often willing to sacrifice their life to keep the secret. Torture simply lowers us to their standards and facilitates increased terrorist activity in the long run. Why put salt on the wound when you have a Band-aid? Torturing cannot be morally justified.
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
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.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...