Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
"the case for torture" critical review
"the case for torture" critical review
Historical perspective on the modern debate regarding the use of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: "the case for torture" critical review
Over time the United States has used many techniques and done many horrible things to get information. Not only has the U.S. used these methods, other countries have used them for years before the United States started to and continue to use them today. These methods have been used to forcefully get insight on enemy movement, details of future missions, bombing attacks, and lots more. Even though these methods normally harm the subject, false information is usually produced. So given that this happens majority of the time shows that torture methods are not productive or efficient only to produce info already known or false. The United States has be accused of various atrocities throughout history but only a very small percentage actually came out positive. These cruel acts do not work normally because they are committed on extreme cases. People believe that …show more content…
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: http://cja.org/article.php?list=type&type=409). Even though the U.S. increased its efforts on determining if there would be any future attacks with torture methods, all attacks can not be prevented. Even though a great number of attacks can be prevented and even suppressed, you cant know everything and be everywhere to eliminate future and even current
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
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.
Should torture be used to gain important information? First you have to ask if interrogational torture even works. As described by Brecher, torture is not a useful tool in obtaining information in regards to the ticking time bomb scenario. Brecher argues several things that discount the use of interrogational torture. First, from the perspective of the person being held captive, they know that if they do know the location of a bomb for example, that they will be...
...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.
Ever since the attack on the world trade center, Americans have become more aware of their surroundings and possible scenarios that could take place anytime and anywhere. After 9/11 the U.S. military began more sophisticated interrogations on individuals that could possibly lead to terrorism outbreaks by using the most effective way which is torture to ensure that the safety and lives of Americans is not threatened. Through the use of torture by our military, the U.S. has been able to interfere the use of terrorism, obtain important information and save numbers of U.S. citizens lives.
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.
If one is willing to harm thousands of people without the thought of repercussions of his or her actions, they have extraordinarily little care for their own lives and in turn would die before retracting their beliefs. So yes, the threat of someone harming thousands of people will always remain, but torture may not be the answer to that predicament. Works Cited Levin, Michael. A. “The Case for Torture.” Newsweek 7 June, 1982: n.pag.
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.
Enhanced interrogation methods include hypothermia, stress positions, waterboarding, and sleep deprivation. In each of these cases there have been studies such as, the one concocted by Dr. Allen Keller, of Bellevue NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. Dr. Keller once said, “Some victims were still traumatized years later. A man who had experienced waterboarding couldn’t take showers and panics when it rains.” In January 22, 2009, President Obama, signed an executive order that requires both the U.S. military and paramilitary organizations to use the Army Field Manual as the guide of getting information from prisoners, moving widely away from the Bush administration tactics. In this manual none of these enhanced interrogation methods are acceptable. If indeed, any person or persons were caught using any of these outlawed interrogation methods, they would be subject to a fine of 10,000 dollars and a life term of imprisonment. This is true even if you showed the intent to commit torture, but never actually committed the crime. If there is sufficient evidence to prove intent, then you are subject to 25 years of imprisonment. The means to not justify the necessity when it comes to enhanced interrogation. It can lead to false information, if someone is falsely accused of a crime and therefore detained by the military with no evidence and then tortured; in most scenarios an innocent person will admit to their accusation to avoid the undeniable pain of torture. There has to be due process and torture should and never will be the answer. All in all, enhanced interrogation is a technique used to induce information from possible suspects; however, this technique is immoral in ways such as, but not limited to, impacting the victims life, f...
Is it morally right or is it wrong to use torture to gain information during interrogation of suspected terrorists or detainees? It is a difficult ethical question that people in the United States are debating. Our government implemented its initial anti-terrorism measures shortly after 9/11 attacks occurred. The United States has found a way to justify the use of torture on suspected terrorists. Despite opposition of the Constitution, international treaties and Supreme Court rulings, justification for using it was hidden behind the curtain of utilitarianism. One of the landmark Supreme Court decisions was from Brown v. Mississippi and it states, “These measures outweighed many individual rights, including due-process rights and the
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.
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.
Seidenstat argues that security is a relative thing and that no set of policies or measures can eliminate all terrorist acts (Seidenstat 2009 ,4). Terrorists will stop at nothing to foil our defenses. They are very patient and creative in planning their attacks. Terrorists will continue to invent ways to defeat our security measures while we are busy with our lives and forgetting about the last attack. Sometimes they don’t need to do nothing but wait for us to let our guard down so they can easily slip passed security measures.