Why Is Torture Unnecessary To Keep The Homeland Secure?

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

Is torture justified? Does it make us feel safer? Most Americans would say that it is immoral to torture any human being for any reason. There are a few people left who would disagree with that and say that some deserve to be tortured in order to obtain information that could potentially save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

Is there a case for torture? Throughout the world for many centuries torture has been a highly debated and very controversial topic. It all started in Greece when slaves would get tortured to collect evidence for trials, crimes against the state, and treason. Not long after, the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazis’ began to use torture as well. During this time witnesses noticed what was going on and did not agree with it but had no way of stopping it. All across the world, a group of nations came together to make an agreement in opposition to torture. Not all nations were agreeing to not allow torture in their country, yet the majority of countries did agree. Even today it is hard to make the whole world agree to not doing something but making these agreements allow individual countries to comprise a support system. Many public figures and educators have made their opinion public but it has not yet evoked a change in the agreements originally set by the Geneva Convention. Torture is still today a very controversial topic with compelling arguments for both sides of whether to torture or to not.

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

The use of torture as a strategy of war is as old as war itself. Torture serves a number of different functions. One of those functions is punishment for crimes committed, and torture is still used in this way to some degree. Another one of the functions of torture is to extract information or confessions. It is this type of torture that Alan Dershowitz and Ken Roth claim was, and still is, being used in the war against terrorism. Although torture violates the principles of the Geneva Convention, it is still used: "countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). The use of torture can be " as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"). This stance echoes the official stance of the United States after September 11, when the White House claimed that torture may be "justified" (Priest and Smith). The argument is simple: if torturing one person leads to information that saes hundreds or thousands of lives, then it is worth it. "We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures," (Dershowitz, cited in "Dershowitz: Torture could be justified").

The main reason why torture can be justified is that it is a means of preventing terrorism. As is states in the dictionary, the definition of terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for

In discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been if it is right to use torture to interrogate suspect terrorist (s) if they have information that can save civilian and military lives. On one hand, some argue that torture is never justified no matter what the situation is. On the other hand, some even contend that torture is a violation of our human rights. Others even maintain that it is ineffective and only causes more conflict. Some even think that it should be used as punishment to serious criminals such as murderers or rapist. My own view is, however, torture should never be used no matter what circumstance there may be even if there is a ticking time bomb. Torture used as a punishment to criminals is barbaric and should never be done. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and violates the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America; also, torture is not effective because captives will often break, and give the interrogators phony information just to stop the pain.

Torture is condemned by worldwide consensus through documents such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia, 2012, p. 345). Torture involves detaining someone suspected of planning violent acts or who may know of such plans, thereby violating the individual’s right to liberty (p. 384). It is also defined by extreme interrogation techniques that cause mental or physical pain, such as simulated drowning or Alan Dershowitz’s example of poking sterile needles under fingernails to get information (p. 345). Generally speaking, ethical theories would condemn torture.

The act of torture is meant to humiliate and harm a life until the person instilling the pain gets what they want out of the person. This act violates the laws of humanity, and is nothing more than cruel and unusual punishment. Studies show that torture can cause actual damage to the memory of the person it is done to. (Cooper) This discovery makes it clear that torture not only causes physical and mental damage, but also the information taken from it has likely been altered. Torture benefits neither the victim, nor the instigator, because, unless he is some sort of sociopath, no one enjoys inflicting pain on other human beings. The tactic of torture is also very immoral, because it goes against the basic principle that you should not do wrong onto others. One could also incorporate the wise proverb that, “you can not fight fire with fire,” because it is basically saying there is no need for retaliation, even if others have done wrong. An example of this would be to not lash back at those who cause you harm. This basic concept of actions causing consequences can be taken to a much larger scale, and can also be intertwined back into the topic of torture. Take for example how Al Qaeda had been causing harm and then how the United States of America stepped in and began interrogating these people using different forms of torture in hopes of stopping them. Although it did help somewhat, it has

Should forms of torture be acceptable in order to protect the country? Would allowing torture corrupted or improve law? Could it give information that could stop future crime? Would torture go to extreme measures in simple quarrels? With torture beginning to take storm by media and society where can the facts lie? Would the torture method just be used to hurt people without probable cause?

Torture isn't justified because it affects people mentally and physically. Often detainees’ fears are used against them. “ The use of insects inside the box was also approved to exploit a phobia Abu Zubaydah had” (Laughland, 2015) Using someone's fear against them can cause a lot of mental

Imagine this: You know there has been a bomb planted somewhere in a densely populated area that has the potential to kill thousands and is set to go off in just a few hours. There is no time to launch a full investigation in order to find out any details about the threat. You do, however, have a prisoner in custody that has the life-saving information you need, but the only way to get out the information is to torture the criminal. What do you do? Do you leave the individual alone and keep his rights intact, or do you make the prisoner suffer through brutal punishment and violate the human rights our country stands for? This controversial question is one that has been debated as far back as the middle ages. Torture, or the action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain, violates basic human rights that are the building blocks of our country, but is this torture justified when it is used to protect our nation and its inhabitants? Modern

Torture is not always used to protect the vulnerable; historically it has been used to extract information about the enemy, to bring terror especially during conflicts and to punish the defeated. Despite the fact that it might seem morally justifiable, it is morally unethical. Torture in this form of practice is uncontrollable; people lose their lives or became damaged for lifetime. There is not much control over that practice, it can start from occasional, non-leaving physical permanent injury, and increase to the constant, excruciating torture (the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line. There is no way of controlling, assigning and or measuring this practice, as such there is no way to tell how much is too much.)

Experience tells us that when faced with serious threats to the life of the nation, government -- any government -- will take whatever measures it considers necessary to cut the crisis. A refusal to give in or back down in any way, complete and total prohibition on torture sets unrealistic standards that no one can hope to meet when faced with extremely dangerous circumstances. It doesn’t matter if it is necessary or reasonable; torture is never easy to have a solid answer. Values always play a huge role in a debate such as this one. When they do happen they present decision-makers with truly sad choices. To torture or not to torture? In my opinion, to deny the use of preventive questioning, torture in such conditions can be as cold-hearted and socially wrong as it is to let torture in the first place. It is cold-hearted because, in true extremely terrible cases, the failure to use preventive questioning, torture will result in the death of innocent people. Judging the rights of the suspect will cancel the rights, including the very basic right to life, of innocent victims.