Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should torture be acceptable
Why torture is morally wrong
The ethics of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is Using Torture On Terrorists A Moral and Valid Way To Gain Information? 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. Anyone who knows even the slightest inkling about torture cannot argue that it is a humane practice. At the infamous Abu Gharaib prison in Guantanamo Bay, detainees lived in horrible conditions. Prisoners were “ridden like animals, fondled by female soldiers, and forced to …show more content…
In the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified by the United States, torture is specifically outlawed. It clearly states in article four, paragraph one that “all acts of torture are offenses under criminal law” (2). This law is not optional, although the United States military and government have been treating it as such. Mitch Frank agrees. He says that “most experts agree that the convention against torture makes it pretty clear that you can’t put prisoners through any physical or mental stress in interrogation. Most people would agree that waterboarding constitutes as physical and mental stress. Another law, the Geneva Convention, again forbids torture. The Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit “’cruel treatment and torture’” and “’outrages upon personal dignity’” (Head 32). Yet we, as Americans, have turned a blind eye to these obvious crimes against humanity. The laws against torture must be
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information of a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in
Solitary confinement has the ability to shatter even the healthiest mind when subjected to indefinite lockdown, yet the mentally ill, who are disproportionately represented in the overall prison population, make up the majority of inmates who are held in that indefinite lockdown. Within your average supermax prison in which all inmates are subjected to an elevated form of solitary confinement, inmates face a 23-hour lockdown, little to no form of mental or physical stimulation that is topped off with no human interaction beyond the occasional guard to inmate contact. It is no wonder ‘torture’ is often used synonymously to describe solitary confinement. For years, cases arguing against solitary confinement have contested against its inhumane
In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin presents logical fallacies that originate at the authors desire to relate the importance of his message. Though his specific argument is a very plausible solution to a taboo problem, the manner in which he presents it has some fallacies that cause it to be unsupported
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.
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.
Alberto Gonzales’ definition of torture above is neither sound legal advice nor consistent with international standards. First of all, whether the actions above (or anything short) constitute “torture” is almost irrelevant, since all the international agreements, treaties, legal decisions, etc. above not only prohibit torture with no derogations, but also cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. So even if the treatment of post-9/11 prisoners does not reach the level of “torture” or the contorted definition that Gonzales lays out, abusive treatment is not allowed at all.
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
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.
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 moral issue of torture is one that has come under scrutiny by many national and international organizations as of late. To talk about torture one must really understand what torture is. As taken from Dictionary.com “1.a. Infliction or severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” This is just the literal meaning of the word but doesn’t entail the great horror that usually accompanies torture. As stated in the “Ticking Bomb” example given on the instruction sheets, “The interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever is necessary?” On what moral level is bringing a human being to humiliation, unbearable physical and mental abuse, and most of the time an ultimate end ever an acceptable practice? Torture should be as unthinkable as slavery. In principle it is: since World War II, governments the world over have agreed to ban torture without exception, even when at war or facing acts of terrorism. International treaties banning torture and other, inhuman, and degrading practices are among the most widely ratified treaties in existence. It is not just the United States that endorses these practices; it is over 150 counties according to the United Nations expert on torture Theo van Boven. Since the United States has gone to “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the president and other top officials seem to think that we are not actually “at war” rather these detainees are outside the realm of prisoners of war (POW) status and they don’t have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Now governments are returning alleged terrorists or national security suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill treatment. This is just a reminder as to why the U.S. did not join the International Criminal Court because they have the “bad man” mindset knowing that they will or already use these tactics. There are many reasons as to why torture is immoral and three of these such reasons are; torture is an unreliable source of information and can work against a government, torture is illegal under most every nations’ laws, and torture is just plain immoral and that is the reason it is illegal.
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.
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 prohibition against torture "is a bedrock principle of international law." Torture, as well as "cruel, savage or demeaning treatment," is prohibited at all times, in all places, including in times of war (“Torture – Is It Ever Justified? Nov. 16th”).
Using torture, even for the best of reasons, is wrong and should not be legal. Subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture, a detainee will tell the interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the actions of a few darken reputations in the eyes of millions and may lead to future conflict. Because of the deep psychological effects that torture has on people, prevention of torture is the main concern for anti-torture activists. Laws presented to combat torture policies are active, but despite this fact, the U.S. government still uses torture to obtain information that dictates its foreign policy. The reason that the U.S. entered Iraq was because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. What most people don’t know is that this information that stated there were nuclear weapons in Iraq, was obtained through the torture of a suspected terrorist (Sonderreger 1). When no weapons of mass destruction were found, it meant that countless lives were wasted on the premise that the information gathered by these torturers was correct. The inaccuracy of the information gathered through torture is shown in all forms of international conflict if it is investigated enough. Through the
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...