Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the case for torture
“the case for torture” summary
“the case for torture” summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the case for torture
Torture: the action or practice of inflicting severe pain for punishment or to force them to say or do something (Oxford Dictionary). Torture can be mental or physical , but is it alright to use torture at all or is it inhumane? If a terrorist knew where the bombs placed throughout America were located. This man is refusing to give any information to any of the interrogation techniques. Just hours away there will be an explosion killing millions of people throughout America alone. Every detective working (secretly) on this case has tried every interrogation technique they were ever taught, even some they made up their self. Although there is one that they have not done. Would torture save the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children? This essay is going to state the reasons why torture should be acceptable in certain situations.
First, torture can be used to quickly gather reliable information.Most criminals all have a wide mind set of information. A fugitive under pressure may give officers more information than they even knew to ask (Messerli 4). The correct information is important in generally everything. The reliability of information can make or break a sports injury, or it could save or kill many lives. Torture gives the tortured many reasons to tell the right information. If the criminal gives the correct data it can guarantee many lives (Messerli 1). A common question when dealing with the topic torture is, “Why would criminals give in to torture?” Well, Criminals, fugitives, terrorists, whatever you decide to call them are also people. All people no matter what your feelings are can although feel, therefore no matter who the person, torture would be painful. Human’s natural instinct is to stop the pain, men...
... middle of paper ...
...t has come to our attention that there are bombs set all over the country ready to explode. One man knows who these Muslim terrorist is And decides to tell the officials (McCoy 1). Finally officers capture the terrorists and is put in custody. With anything the detectives try to do the terrorist will not give any information whatsoever. For many hours of trying to interrogate the terrorist getting nowhere. Finally the officers get a call that half the country is in pieces. Would the use of torture save millions of lives?
In conclusion, torture can be very useful in gathering information and using as punishment for those who commit heinous crimes. Even though, there are no set rules for torturing and shows a bad reputation. One of the most popular ideas is the ticking time bomb method. Therefore, torture is acceptable in certain cases. Torture Helps our live succeed.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
The motivation to torture is guided by gut feelings and “what if” stories. Using torture to gain information involves a tremendous amount of assumptions. The Torturer is assuming that there is an actual danger, they are assuming that they have the correct person as well as assuming their level of their involvement and guilt in the situation, and lastly by using torture they are assuming that there is no alternative way to extract the information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These prove the immorality of torture because; it is illegal word wide with rational and moral reasons, accepted that it can work against a country that uses it and, righteously is a transcendental truth beyond humans. There cannot be any exception to the rule whether in wartime, political instability, fighting terrorism or even to defuse a nation full of skepticism towards terrorist factions. Once an exception is made, especially by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (U.S.), there is no way to logically bring justice to those who use torture in future situations. It would bring about the illogical and childish influence of the “do as I say, not as I do” motto. Torture should be condemned by every country and punish those accordingly who do not abide by these superior human dignity rights.
Imagine there is a bomb under downtown New York City. You have the person who put it there and you have the option to torture him and find out where the bomb is. Otherwise, all of those people will die. So, is torture right? Torture is something that is largely debated among many countries and is one of the leading debates today. It is a problem because it is considered a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity but with terrorists on the loose everywhere what are we going to do? The debate on torture really began after the signing of the Geneva conventions in 1949 after there were talks on the treatment of soldiers in other countries. The real problem now is that many terrorist organizations in the middle east that do not
Heymann should consider the question. What would he do if his innocent family member was in danger and he had the chance to torture and find a way to stop it? Heymann would most likely answer that question with “if we approve torture in one set of circumstances, isn’t every country then free to define its own exceptions, applicable to Americans as well as its own citizens? (535). He is saying torturing would set a bad example and that the effects would result in other countries and using torture with the United States included. Most countries that we have been at war with, wouldn’t hesitate to use torture. Recently, ISIS released videos of beheadings, how is that any different than torture? Beheadings are more brutal than some torture methods. And torture does not necessarily mean the person would die. Also, most famously the Japanese tortured there POW’s captured in labor camps during WWII. Torture is everywhere already and if we stopped using torture, that does not mean other countries will. If we stop torturing, the terrorist will not fear being captured. They would be able to freely walk around and spread their ideas and plan attacks without worrying about being caught or captured and sent to
What is torture? Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. Torture is an advanced physical interrogation technique that is more effective than other interrogation methods. Physical torture is the definitive violation of another human beings basic human rights; nothing and nobody has the right to violate them. Nobody has the right to deliberately harm another human being with the objective of causing them physical and emotional pain in hopes of obtaining information that is uncertain. However, some believe that
In my opinion, I do not agree to torture suspects and I do not think this way could work well for the terrors. I think this way is inhuman, abusive and cruel and government need to prohibit torture. Some expects address the fact that torture does not help them get the real information. They point out when the prisoners torture, they might tell something wrong because they do not want to suffer anymore even though they do not break the law. In China, in the past, the government also have the torture in order to get the true from the prisoners; however, it turn bad sometimes because it really hurt the prisoners physically and mentally. A lot of innocent people do not want to suffer and admit that it is their mistake. When people suffer the painful,
Human beings have values and when they are treated as an end, their native values are respected but by torturing people, the victims are treated as a means to an end. A person’s physical body should not be used as a tool to achieve the aims of the torturer. When this action is done the victim is used a “thing”. According to Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simple as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Fieser 179).
From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong and unacceptable. Many religious people are against this act of violence because they see it as a violation of the dignity of a human being. Humans have the right to not have intentional harm upon themselves from others. The ban on torture furthermore supports this certain right. Not only does torture violate people’s rights, but they also violate the demands of justice. In the past, many of our nation’s people have been tortured and we have had a problem with it; but when it’s not you the one that is being tortured, it seems to be fine. Have you heard of the golden rule, “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation? (7)” This applies very well to this problem.