Critics called the treatment torture, but the Bush administration denied this. Is there a place in the U. It is just a little misleading to add inquisition or star chamber, or Stalinesque legality to the mix. But we can't do it alone. Is there ever a justification for the use of torture? Torture is a Double-edged Sword Torture is a doubled edged sword that can harm not only the victim but the perpetrators as well. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down.
Let's say that by torturing one person you could save New York City. Torture has long been illegal in Britain, even against terrorists. Frequently Asked Questions on Torture Does Torture Work? Many people believe that it should not be legal for regular purposes, such as investigating domestic crimes, but for international security and our protection from extremists, they also believe that there are times when it will be necessary to act in otherwise distasteful ways. Senate Committee said brutal questioning of suspects does not work. We can extrapolate from evidences presented above how Torture is strictly condemned by people and society from different perspectives. Second, if it never happens, why should you care about the moral outcome? If it's worth torturing one person to get what you want, how many others are in danger of being tortured? We want the world to be a better place.
Convention Against Torture, the U. Whatever the case may be, there is a hefty price to pay for dismissing the central dilemma on implausibility grounds, as many liberals are wont to do. This is not, in fact, a particularly realistic scenario but arguing through this problem can illuminate many of the issues involved in torture. He is the film critic for National Review. © 2008 Capital Newspapers Because of people like you, another world is possible. In fact, there is a strong likelihood that it will make us less safe, because the practice of torture results in extremism and a desire for revenge. Torture is a window into hell, with a satanic god cast as a human sadist.
These arguements are intellectual mind games to obscure the bloody truth and provide a nice cushion to distance civilised people from that truth. You would torture him or her, right? They had no limit to who they were torturing. Earlier this year, the Harvard project gained interest among some members of Congress. I am certain that Deshowitz is familiar with the fact that the brother of Anne Boleyn confessed to having sex with his sister. Many will be horrified that Dershowitz even allows himself to think such thoughts. The first one is epistemic: your belief that the man knows the burying location of your daughter and that she is still alive cannot match the certainty of your witnessing her strangulation. Interrogation techniques that respect human rights have a proven track record of success at getting information out of terrorism suspects.
In support of this absolutist view it is sometimes argued that torture never works, because a tortured person will tell the torturer anything to stop the pain. The issue of torture is being very current and it arouses debate between those who are totally against it; those who think that it sometimes can be used for good; and those who are in between. Tom Parker is a fellow at Brown University and was an adviser for the Harvard project. In China too there is significant support for torture - 37% for, 49% against. Should Illegal Immigrants be allowed to receive Social Services? Torture, then, by this argument will serve to curb terrorism and will thwart future terrorist attacks.
In my opinion both sides are right in presenting their arguments, and they both are very convincing. After all, he can wield either one at will to decide her fate. Perhaps the deadly mix of fear, humiliation, abandonment, and open-ended sadism that the practice connotes. A torture victim is not a threat. Much like slavery, torture is coerced trade. Such hostility is much more likely to foster further terrorism than torturing is likely to thwart future attacks.
Few would argue that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was worse than shooting him in the head. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it and the legal system which accepts it Hoffman. Well how about two people? Torture is barbaric; rendition is barbaric and hypocritical. Torture is about reprogramming the victim to succumb to an alternative exegesis of the world, proffered by the abuser. If torture is inevitably going to take place in a preventive state, should we be content to allow it to exist outside the law? This campaign included a number of torture techniques witch were used a handful of times.
You have to do what is right and moral. Learn a lot of things. We should not disrupt that particular right given to us by torturing innocent people who have similarly given the rights as well. Obviously, inflicting harm to other people is illegal. What if the attack is likely to occur tomorrow? See more frequently asked questions about torture.
We gained value;… 1408 Words 6 Pages similar incidents. Sophie's choice falls within the world of morals but beyond the human reach of moral guidelines. The importance of the issue of torture is in that it lies between the ideas of whether it is more important to protect human rights or use it as a mean of obtaining important information which could be used for the safety of the society. Torture is a notoriously ineffective method of eliciting valid information, and the use of torture demeans the torturer even more than it punishes the victim of that abuse. I ask you: What kind of civilization do we think we will be left with? Finally, how much leniency should a judge extend in hypothetical cases of torture that demonstrably save lives? They do not apply to spies or terrorists. One-third of those questioned - 29% - think that governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture in certain cases. Redefining it as the Bush lawyers have tried to do does not make torture legal.
So I think I disagree with Alan Dershowitz. I am saying that in the end you must be the only owner of your decision. Please help keep Common Dreams alive by making a contribution. Torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment in order to force them to do or confess something. It is morally imperative for her to renounce any ethical code and take full responsibility for her choice—or, as an existentialist would put it, to admit that she is condemned to be free. But do we need a law for a bad act that happens at one millionth the rate of murder? In other words, how do we know that ethical codes aren't rationalization engines in disguise, mechanisms for evading responsibility, sophisticated dodges? Picture the struggle of being held down and defenseless, against your will.