Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove.
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
Many people might think that torture is cruel, unacceptable and it does not show humanity. In contrast, Michael Levin says that implementing torture is needed to prevent future evil acts. In “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin also makes it clear that there are situations in which torture is not merely acceptable but morally necessary. Levin argues that implementing torture to save people lives is morally right and reasonable. Levin’s purpose of his text is to let people know that there are times when torture becomes an option to save and protect innocent lives.
Although torturing is considered wrong by many people today, I agree with Michael Levin that torture should be an option in certain situations because it could save the lives of American people. Levin says in his article “Torturing a terrorist unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality (Levin 605).”
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
2016). Similar to the arguments applied for the rights ethical framework, every human deserves equal treatment, whether it is the victim or the torturer. It is easy to minimize the direct effect that torturing someone has on the interrogator. In various cases, the torturer becomes the tortured as well (Boothe 2006, 25-26). The interrogator is mentally changed forever; the mental burden and imagery will be a constant reminder of his actions and will be detrimental to his life.
BLUF: The use of enhanced interrogation techniques presents a severe threat to United States national security due to the unreliable information collected from interviews and the potential for terrorist organizations to use such techniques within their recruitment propaganda. United States government officials must continue the ban of enhanced interrogation techniques to preserve the trust of the Iraqi and Afghanistan people during counter-insurgency efforts, and develop alternative strategies for human intelligence. During the War on Terror, the United States committed acts of torture, referred to as enhanced interrogation techniques, to at least 39 detainees. In fact, nearly all states between 1981 and 2010 engaged in counter-insurgency efforts have committed some form of torture.
“One time Grandma told me she was the very happiest when she was living over all her memories.” A Lantern in Her Hand is about the life of Abbie Deal as she moves with her husband Will, from Iowa to Nebraska for a new start. In the 1800s this was not easy but Abbie and Will accepted the challenge. Abbie is a dreamer and Will is quiet and rarely complains. Abbie has so many dreams that she knows she will not be able to live out but as her life goes on and she sees her children grow she realizes what her true dreams are.
As this article mentions many people do believe that torture works as nobody could resist the physical and mental torture people are put through. In reality most successful cases have been done by psychology experts using other methods. They used human knowledge and applied it to the interrogation. Moskalenko, Sophia. " Great Minds Think Alike: Psychology Of An Effective Interrogation."
The practice of enhanced interrogation techniques, considered by many as torture, has further tarnished America's commitment to human rights and ethical treatment. These violations of civil liberties have not only harmed the individuals directly affected but have also weakened the fabric of trust between citizens and the government, fostering a sense of unease and
Throughout the years the controversial question; “Should the United States bring back the questionable; however effective, Guantánamo Bay torture program to obtain information from enemies to the country?” has frequented often. This is a question that has been asked since George W. Bush left office on January 20, 2009. This highly debated question is agreed among roughly 2/3rds of Americans. They believe it is a justified means of extracting information from enemies to the country and would like to see it brought back. The Guantanamo Bay torture program should be brought back since it is an effective way of obtaining information from different people as well as obtaining crucial information from terrorists or enemies to prevent further time
Why should torture around the United States end? After the 9/11 attacks in 2001 the CIA has acquire new methods to interrogate suspects. However the new methods are far beyond of what someone would think of. And the the question is so why should torture end? Before the United States approved this new way of interrogation they knew that what they were going to do had one crucial outcome.
Many experts argue that torture is an unreliable means of getting useful information. Weighing the costs and benefits of the use of torture has been a topic of debate since the tragic events of 9/11. Since the American government decided that the use of torture to gain information from suspected terrorists in the aftermath attacks of that day. Is the use of torture ever ethical?
In Defense of Torture “Because It Is Wrong:” A Meditation on Torture Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says What ethical arguments are being made? Torture is okay to use. Torture is wrong. Torture should be okay in some circumstances
Torture is universally prohibited in both national and International law worldwide. It is a fundamental violation of human rights that cannot be derogated from. Essentially, torture is said to constitute any physical and mental act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted upon a person ( UNCAT).Torture is mainly used for purposes that are set out to degraded, embarrass, and induce destruction in the person being subjected to torture and those in close relation to the person being tortured .Torture is a mechanism used by those in authoritative positions to preserve themselves in power (Power, 2006:2). Despite the universal prohibition on torture, its use has been widespread throughout history, and especially of late in the wake of September 11 2001 and other recent terrorist atrocities to combat the aforementioned heinous terrorist attacks.
