Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of 9/11 on America
Impact of 9/11 attacks
The effects of 9/11 on the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of 9/11 on America
and it quite possibly be a reality. Therefore the idea of torture as being illegal is redirected with loopholes and terms defined.
After 9-11 George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the CIA used loopholes to torture the suspects after the attack. Al Qaeda terrorists were not classified under prisoners of war and there was a genuine concern of other attacks to follow (Yoo 1). Under these interpretations and bending of the laws Bush was legal and justified in the actions taken. The Bush administration picked waterboarding as their main force when torturing the masterminds behind the attacks. Waterboarding was picked because they had been training special force teams and tens of thousands of other soldiers before the attacks, and it was stated that they
…show more content…
America prides itself in treated all individuals humanely and fairly, and even one person under force suffering is against what America stands for. America should never justify torture based on our beliefs we were built on. Bruce Anderson says, “A man can retain his human dignity in front of a firing squad or on the scaffold: not in a torture chamber. Torturers set out to break their victim: to take human being and reduce him to a whimpering wreck” (Anderson 1). America does not believe in breaking someone down, but rather build them up. When an American messes up, in jail we continue to build them up. We help them get a college degree, try to work some of their unwanted qualities out, and give them the opportunities to better themselves. America is supposed to be the leader and teach the world that torture is not the answer. That is why nearly a quarter of American people believe torture should never be used of justified (ProQuest 2). Americans still hold the core values that this beautiful country was built …show more content…
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.
there. Therefore, Torture is illegitimate. Torturing is however, is an illegal act only when the
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
One of the groups argued that torture is sometimes okay while the other group argued that under no circumstances is torture allowed. In my opinion, the group that is against torture won the debate because they had more good points than the other group did. The group that was against torture argued that torture affects innocent people and ruins people’s lives. The group that is says sometimes torture is okay said that torture is helpful when getting information from suspected terrorists. There is also always a reason for doing it. The government gets background information about these suspects before even thinking about using “enhanced interrogation” techniques on them. It helps them find about key information because there is no other way to get information from them. The no torture group fights back saying that you don’t want to stoop down to their level and that you do not necessarily know if they are terrorists. If you keep getting the wrong people, you will just keep going in circles. You could even accidently kill the person while waterboarding them and there is no justification for killing someone you don’t know. The torture that is okay with torture clarified that torture is only okay under certain circumstances because there is no other way to get information from them. If you just kept them in a prison, they would wait their whole life before giving up any information. Then, the no torture group
Also the American prison is inhumane because it’s also underfunded and the prisoners have to face inhumane and unsanitary conditions, such as lack of clean water.US prisons are breeding ground for violence. I think these places are supposed to improve inmates into law abiding people. Instead of doing this they turn even the harmless criminals into the most violent ones. One man is sentenced
The U.S. military and CIA forces have been using torture to pull information out of detainees since it was legalized after 9/11 although revoked in 2009. The use of torture mechanisms has been used in many instances and in many forms. Some acts of torture even result in death upon these detainees. In this moment it is against federal law, and therefore should not be used unless the law changes sometime soon. Which is very possible as Donald Trump has a very different perspective from Barack Obama and is in the process of changing many of decisions Obama made during his presidency. Therefore torture should be used as a last resort when interrogating foreign detainees.
Eduardo Galeano once said, “The purpose of torture is not getting information. It’s spreading fear” (BrainyQuote). Torture is used when individuals are forced to answer questions through various kinds of abuse. Torture happens due to the government and the belief that torture is a benefit because it saves innocent lives. Torture is wrong and should not be legalized as a means of interrogating terrorists because it causes physical and psychological damage and it produces false information.
The United States stood by its policy of opposing torture for a long time and guaranteed they would never torture prisoners until the attacks on September 11, 2001 occurred. In the aftermath of these attacks secret legal practices were formed and gave U.S. officials the power to torture suspected terrorists. After this the U.S. began psychologically and physically torturing detainees following the attacks. The U.S. took a stance that you need to get your hands dirty in order to receive something good. For example the Bush Administration vowed to “take the gloves off” in conflict with detainees(Quote found:
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the fear of another catastrophic event in the United States became a greater concern for the American public. To subdue the growing fear amongst the public, political officials across America were compelled to address new debates on the nation’s tactics to prevent another atrocity. Possibly the most heated, and still argued debate, is that of the appropriateness of the employment of torture to acquire necessary intelligence; and as in most debates in our nation, our political representatives are bitterly divided concerning the issue. While many claim that the use of torture in any case is morally wrong, more radical advocates for the use of torture believe that it is “morally mandatory”. This ethical dilemma, however, must come to a conclusion if the nation is to improve its moral and diplomatic relations.
Although this is a view seen by many people there is also those like me that believe it's a necessary evil, necessary in ways that can save countless lives in return for a little inhumanity shown against those that are showing no humanity themselves to others. According to Author of “The Ethics of Killing”,Jeff McMahan “Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive – for example, when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent him from seriously harming innocent people”. Author Jeff McMahan agrees with those that believe torture is acceptable in a few situations. Commentator Charles Krauthammer from MLive media group argues the same that there are times when torture is the only choice. “Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy...The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives”. Another formidable lawyer and commentator, Sydney Kentridge, came up with a more sinister plot. “The nuclear device is ticking, we have a member of the terrorist group but we have also found his wife and children, may god forbid this situation ever arise but we would not only have the right to torture but we would have the duty to do
Torture legalization has been a controversial debate among the government officials following the incidents of 9/11. America launched a war on terrorism against Al-Qaida and other terrorist extremists in response to many different threats and attacks from those terrorist organizations. Many suspects were caught by American intelligence and many were incarcerated. However, the problem became the way US would deal with those prisoners to get the information needed to win the war. US started secretly using harsh methods to force the prisoners to talk. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) act signed by the US after the WWII explains torture as a dehumanizing method that diverge from the respect of human rights (Chazelle). The US is believed to be among countries that put human rights first. Any attempt to legalize torture would not justify its use because torture would still be a dehumanizing act. Those who propose torture legalization do not suggest torture to be among the primary methods of interrogation,
There is no situation in which torture is permissible. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other Declarations by the United Nations General Assembly express the shared moral values of numerous countries of the world. It is concluded that “torture admits no necessity by which it can be justified”. Article 5 of the UDHR states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Additionally, Article 2.2 of the Torture Convention supports the impermissibility of the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario, stating that there can be no exceptions to the ban on torture. Therefore, it is more than clear that any use of torture in the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a violation under international law. My view of how to handle the circumstance supports this notion that neither the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation nor any oth...
John Stuart Mill once said, “Bad men need nothing more to encompass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in America today. Hundreds of terrorists are tortured every day. Some say that because of terrorists’ actions, they “deserve” their abuse. Victims of terrorist crimes, such as 9/11, are often the biggest supporters of terrorist abuse. However, torture is an inhumane and ineffective means of gaining information, because the methods are deplorable, the information gleaned is usually wrong, and the practice is against several laws.
As Eduardo Galeano says, ¨The purpose of torture is not getting information. It's spreading fear.¨ This quote shows that Torture happens on a daily basis causing many people to fear extremist groups because of their actions on innocent people. In Iraq and Syria extremists groups decide to kill and torture beings as a sign of power to enemies. No one is safe in the states of Iraq and Syria because a extremist group could come to your community and kidnap people to use them to torture them or even as sex slaves. The use of torture by extremists in Iraq and Syria is a frightening human rights issue. One human rights issue torture violates is holding someone against their will when they do not wanna be in that situation.
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...
These people are crushed, collapsed, cauterized, contused, and overall, they are tortured. Torture is purposely harming another person for multiple reasons and it should never be used in any situation. Even though torture dates back to medieval times, it is not acceptable even if used as punishment. Whether to gain information, discover a disaster plan, stop future attacks, or anything else, using excess force and hurting another human being is awful. The effects on the victims and culprits of torture are too substantially great to ignore or to be outweighed by the ‘benefits’ of this type of aggression. Countless people have been murdered and many survivors still live with scars, horrid memories, mood disorders, bipolar tendencies, and many other health effects.