Human Torture Should Not be Continued Essay

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

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.

“The one lesson we 've learned from history is that we have not learned any of history 's lessons” (Unknown Author, n.d.). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) such as “waterboarding” and extraordinary rendition (aka “black sites”) by CIA agents for American intelligence interests and to analyze the drastically apposing views of the legalities, morality, and effectiveness of these methods. Is the CIA’s use of EITs and extraordinary rendition equivalent to torture, and therefore, acts in violation of international law? The definition of “torture” under statute 18 U.S.C. 2340 states, “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control” (United States Code, 2011). This definition expands with specific identifying characteristics of an act and varies to include humiliation of an individual. Of course, pain and suffering is a subjective experience. The worlds historical practice of “torture” reinforces lessons that human’s imaginative capacity for inflicting pain and terror on our fellow human is disgracefully boundless; yet, parallel behaviors of violence and humiliation reemerge with disturbing regularity (Smith, 2013).

The author Allen S. Keller, M.D., is the director of the Bellevue Hospital Center and belongs to the member’s advisory council on human rights. (p.558) He is well known for his advocacy on the various use of torture tactics used on Iraqi prisoners and other refuges. During a Congressional meeting Mr. Keller stated "To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [in which Keller included waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience." (“CNN”, 2007)

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

Ten years ago on September 11th, terrorists successfully carried out a plan to kill thousands of innocent American civilians. On that day millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief. How could something like this happen on American soil? In quick retaliation, President George W. Bush forcefully declared a war against terrorism and specifically against those responsible for the slaughter of his people, Al Qaida. At the head of this organization and architect of “9-11” was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. He openly boasted of the devastation he had caused, which in turn enraged the American people. This man eluded us for the past ten years until a little over a week ago President Barack Obama announced to the world that

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

In the article “The Case for Torture” Michael Levin presents an argument for the usage of non-traditional interrogation methods such as physical torture in order to prevent “future evils”1. His approach paints a vivid scenario of how the use of human torture can be used to gain information that may prevent future tragedies and possibly save lives. Though written in 1982, Levin’s editorial provides a striking comparison of activates that have taken place since Sept. 11, 2001. It is the objective of this paper to present an unbiased argument against Michael Levin’s views and give a clear perceptive of how human torture is unacceptable during any state of affairs.

Since the beginning of ancient times, torture has been utilized for gaining information from persons of interest. It “refers to the use of various techniques designed to inflict extreme physical pain, psychological distress, or both” (Torture and Interrogation). Its goal is to strike fear, punish for crimes, or collect significant information. In the past, torture during war spurred the Geneva Conventions, a sequence of treaties that established global laws, prohibiting the act of torture on prisoners of war. Even though these laws forbid the use of torture, some countries still “reserve the right to use torture in

Can torture, the infliction of intolerable pain to extract potentially life-saving information from war criminals, ever be justified? What if this torture or activity is sanctioned or ordered by those in authority? Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, numerous reported incidents of torturing detainees by the United States have been covered in the media all over the world. The public first learned about the horrific actions of the United States when the truths of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Most Americans are shocked by those horrendous and disturbing photographs of the abuse of prisoners broadcasted. When the humiliation of Abu Ghraib surfaced, the US government argued that it was solely the work of a couple soldiers. However, the truth is that prisoner abuses have expanded with the soldiers knowing that it is possible for them to get away with such atrocious actions. Moreover, the use of torture by the United States is setting a bad example for the authoritarian regimes abroad, and sending out the wrong signal that torture is legitimate (Greenberg, 2009). It further damages United States' authority to act as international police to speak out against authoritarian regimes that are treating detainees in even less humane ways. Some government officials believe that life-saving torture is morally justified, because the lives of innocent people prevails the infliction of physical pains to criminals. Others reject torture as both unreliable and an insult to basic principles

Torture, being defined by the 1984 Convention Against Torture is the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime” (Beehner), is condemned and considered illegal by the United States of America and carries severe punishment for those that carry out the act. Yet the numerous amounts of maltreatment of the detainees held by the US during the War on Terror has led to humanitarian interference and, more notably, concern from the United Nations assembly. The most prominent facility in which these detainees are being held is the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, a site used for indefinite detention (mostly without trial), yet other secret prisons (operated by the CIA) are scattered about the world, which are also used for “enhanced” interrogation purposes.

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

Is torture ever justified? Scholars in social psychology, sociology, history, and even literature whose ideas would help clarify the use of torture. Torture and dehumanization dates back centuries along the colonial era. George J Annas’ Post-9/11 Torture at CIA “Black Sites”- Physicians and Lawyers Working Together” uncovers the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report and it’s hidden injustice. Charles B. Strozier’s Torture, War, and the Culture of Fear After 9/11 insist that torture has its tactical benefits, however it is inhumane and ethically wrong. "Trump Says 'Torture Works,' Backs Waterboarding and 'Much Worse” by Johnson Jenna reports on Trump and his support of torture. "Torture as an Absolute Wrong” by Jacob Sullum suggest that

139). However, in “Just Torture,” Majima does believe torture is morally permissible in some cases, which he calls “just torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 143). The circumstances under which torture is permissible include when an individual is completely certain another person committed a crime and when there is no other option to solve or prevent a problem (Majima, 2012).