Razan Tanbour
Michigan Islamic Academy
Mr. Matthew Berki
Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture has been a controversial issue. This information-gathering technique has been the major topic of every wartime discussion. In the case of a terrorist attack such as that of 9/11, shouldn’t torture be justified as a way to save countless lives? Torture proponents always use the scenario in which thousands, if not millions, of lives are pitted against the well-being of one likely terrorist and his torture. Torture opponents argue that torture is a clear violation of human rights, morals, and ethics. Even though torture is morally and ethically inexcusable and generally frowned upon, it cannot be considered a black-and-white issue. Looking at the big picture, however, due to the traumatizing nature of torture, it must be considered that torture is morally and ethically in the wrong, but torture should be justified in the few, extremely rare situations where no other methods for extracting information are available.
Torture, a painful, brutal tactic for extracting information from suspected terrorists, is an intelligence-gathering technique that must be stopped. The inhumane nature of torture is mentally, emotionally, and psychologically traumatizing. It is an issue especially when innocents are the ones that are wrongfully accused, detained, and tortured. An case of this occurrence is the story of one Maher Arar, a Syrian Canadian graduate of McGill University, was arrested in John F. Kennedy International Airport on September 26, 2002, and interrogated for two weeks by US authorities ("Maher Arar"). Weeks after his interrogation, he was transported to the infamous prisons and “casket” cells of Damascus, Syria, a...
... middle of paper ...
...lity of wrongful arrest by forbidding the capture of suspects without concrete evidence.
Since so much evidence exists to discredit and deflate the argument for torture while close to none exists to support it, it would be natural to come to the conclusion that torture is unjustifiable. However, it would be insufficient to merely dismiss the prospect of torture in its entirety despite its apparent success, albeit uncommon. Ergo, it would be more prudent to maintain reservations, without compromising the principal part of this argument (torture is unjustifiable), by adding that torture can be allowed, provided that it meets various prerequisites for its use and abides by the strict protocol and frameworks proposed by Dr. Shunzo Majima or any other guidelines that serve the same purpose.
Refereces
http://americamagazine.org/issue/facing-torture
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.
Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views, and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order stop the talk of terrorist “right,” (648). Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite (Levin
...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.
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...
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.
In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more creditable details of the issue the article would have sustained the scrutiny of more educated individuals. The addition of more concrete information, would have given people something to cling to, inherently improving the articles creditability.
In discussion of torture, one controversial issue has been whether torture is effective and if it violates to the human rights. On the one hand, some argue that torture is effective. Others even maintain that torture does not violate human rights. I disagree with allowing torture because in my view, torture is not effective, and it violates the human rights.
... in World War II led to the creation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. Both prohibited and made torture illegal (Woodard). But torture does not stop there. Torture is just as present in today’s world as it was decades ago. Recently, pro-Ukraine citizens have been abducted and tortured for supporting their country. Pro-Russians obviously do not agree with them and torture seems as if it is the best way to deal with them(Bigg). From ancient times to 2014, torture is used to punish people for either breaking the law or simply not conforming to other peoples’ beliefs. Sure it seems as if our world today is completely different, which it is, but that is just the physical look of it. The people in society haven’t changed. They still have their cruel, cold hearts. And that is not going to change anytime soon.
In the article, “The Case For Torture”, Levin attempts to validate the use of torture as a reason to help save innocent lives. Throughout his article, Levin provides his readers with logical examples that help widen the perspectives of his audience. The author attempts to paint a clearer picture on why he believes that torture is a reasonable method of resolution. It is relatively challenging to conclude whether torture is acceptable or not. Should innocent lives be endangered? Torture is the practice of inflicting pain upon someone as a method to force him or her to do or say something (Levin 95). Should the life of one be sacrifices for the lives of many? Levin uses mainly pathos along with logos and ethos to successfully convince his readers that torture is not a
Enhanced Interrogation, more commonly referred to by the public as torture, is a form of interrogation in which subjects are suspected to extreme force in order to obtain crucial information. The subject, being highly controversial, is often deemed to be unethical and ineffective. However, this is not this case. Although the methods are cruel, it is a necessary evil in order to obtain highly important information from terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Questions about the necessity of such an extreme form of interrogation have been answered in many different ways from many different groups of individuals.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.
There are thousands of pressing issues in today’s society through changes in leadership and evolving ideals around the globe. One of the most prominent issues in the United States today is terrorism, and how to handle the threats of danger to the infrastructure and citizens of America. With previous scares concerning Al Qaeda and now the imposing dangers of ISIS, many United States citizens live in fear of terrorists attacks. One question that seems to puzzle many is: Is it ethical to torture terrorists in order to extract information? In order to promote the well-being of many, I believe it is acceptable to torture terrorists to gain life-saving information.
Opponents of torture would answer the question with a swift, no. Opponents of torture will argue that the idea of human rights was developed with the belief that "the human does not exist for the benefit of the State, but that the State exists for the benefit of the human being."(Burgers and Danelius, 1988)