Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The principles of torture
Torture as an interrogation method
The principles of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The principles of torture
Torture is something all over the world to inflict punishment and pain to people. The fear of drowning is something a lot of people have. With this being said, this story is based on a torture method called waterboarding. Waterboarding was thought of by members of the Special Forces. It was used in a training called SERE, which means Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape. The main things needed for this torture is water, and a board of course. This is why it gets the name waterboarding. The goal of this paper is to insure people that doubt waterboarding is a torture, waterboarding is a torture. In “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, Christopher Hitchens describes waterboarding in order to convince the readers on why it is torture.
In Hitchens’s
…show more content…
“Among the veterans there are at least two views on all this, which means in practice that there are two opinions on whether or not ‘waterboarding’ constitutes of torture.” (620). Being tied up and blind folded against ones will is bad, but not really considered torture. When slowly drowning someone to get something from them gets added to the mix changes it to actually torture. Some believe since screws, hammers, pincers, and other weapons are not used then it is not torture. They also believe that waterboarding does not get results fast enough to be considered torture, so it is just a little tease. “When contrasted to actually torture, ‘waterboarding’ is more like foreplay.” (620). People do not have to use weapons to torture anyone, and waterboarding is a great example of it. The closes thing to a weapon is water and not many people would consider this a weapon. Whether or not people say it is or is not torture, it is safe to say it cannot really be said without experiencing it. Hitchens claims it is torture, and has the right to, because he has firsthand …show more content…
“But it was something Americans were being trained to resist, not inflict.” (616). Now days, people inflict waterboarding. This is where its purpose comes in. Americans are trained so they can resist it, and now they inflict it to get information from other people. This torture is used by the Special Forces to receive stuff from American enemies, which helps to answer questions one may have. Mastermind of September 11, 2001 “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed … impressed his integrators by holding out for upward of two minutes before cracking.” (618). Eventually he cracked though, giving useful information about the 9-11 incident. So, the purpose of waterboarding, as stated before, is to receive useful information from people to help answer what people
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
Why Waterboarding is Torture The US Reservations of the UN Convention against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information from a person.” Waterboarding fits into this definition very well. In the “How to Do It” article, waterboarding is described as filling up the upper respiratory system with water, causing both physical and mental pain. This causes the person being tortured to feel like they are drowning without them actually dying from the drowning. For the person experiencing it, it may even be worse because the article states that “his suffering must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown,” so it is never ending.
The method of interrogation, water boarding may be controversial but I think it is necessary in order to extract vital information from Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists groups.
Torture (Latin torquere, “to twist”), in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to compel a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. Among primitive peoples, torture has been used as a means of ordeal and to punish captured enemies. Examination by torture, often called the “question,” has been used in many countries as a judicial method. It involves using instruments to extort evidence from unwilling witnesses.
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
Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person. Torture in any form is used to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
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.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
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.
Though torture and enhanced interrogation are similar in that they both force information from captured individuals, they are basically different due to motives as well as extreme measures used. Enhanced interrogation is used by the United States for certain interrogation methods including “walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding” (Quigley 3). This method of interrogation is protected against international criminal prosecution. However, torture is known as the practice of inflicting “cruel, inhumane, degrading infliction of severe pain” (Beehner 1) and is “often used to punish, to obtain information or a confession, to take revenge on a person or persons or create terror and fear” (Quiroga 7). Like enhanced interrogation, torture can be used to retrieve information. However, the motive of using torture is not always to save lives. Although enhanced interrogation us...
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
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
“If one speaks about torture, one must take care not to exaggerate,” Jean Améry view of torture comes from a place of uneasiness (22). He discusses in his book At The Mind’s Limits, about the torture that he underwent while a prisoner in Auschwitz. In his chapter titled “Torture”, he goes into deep description of not only the torture he endured, but also how that torture never leaves a person. Améry goes to great lengths to make sure that the torture he speaks of is accurate and as he says on page 22, not exaggerated.
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.
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.