The Use Of Torture : Coercion And Intimiture, By Henry Shue

Let us begin with Michael Levin, whose thesis states, “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but not morally mandatory,” in the second

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

Torture and Democracy written by Darius M. Rejali, delves into the complexity of torture that exists and has existed throughout the world. Published in 2007 by Princeton University Press in New Jersey, the book is an excellent resource for not just educators but, students and individuals interested in political science alike. Torture and Democracy, ISBN: 978-0-691-14333-0, is priced at $48.43 on Amazon.com for a paperback edition. The book has 849 pages that include appendixes in the latter section for readers to review references, notes, index, and other pertinent information that may have needed further explanation throughout the text. Darius Rejali is an accredited professor of political science at Reed College located in Oregon (Rejali 2007). Through his exquisite work and evaluation of torture records, Rejali is recognized as an expert on modern torture internationally (Rejali 2007). In Torture and Democracy, Rejali develops his thesis that torture in democratic states are prevalent even though it seems nonexistent. He argues that through techniques that are performed in such a way that leaves no marks on the

The definition of torture is perceived differently to every person. In this dispute, the two opposing sides are generally immovable. Many claim that it is not an effective tool, it is downright wrong, and it just does not work, while the other side claims the opposite. The argument “The Gray Zone: Defining Torture” by Barry Gewen examines the controversial issues that erupt from the touchy topic of torture. Gewen writes a successful and persuasive argument for his favorable position towards torture as an effective mean for gathering information and halting life-threatening situations which he does through his use of strong premises, logos, and ethos, building him a credible and structurally sound argument.

In this article, written by Andrew Fiala, the topic of discussion is torture, terrorism, and the lesser evil of arguments. Fiala has many strong statements about torture, and how there are different types used in different situations and it being to excessive. He touches on terrorism of how it is wrong, but he states that the terrorist is closely related to torture. Then he touches on the double-standards that moral standards of people sacrificing themselves to save others. Fiala argues that torture needs to be diminished, then argues that terrorism and torture are closely linked, but they have many differences, and then how the “fat man” analogy is what terrorism can be compared to.

The essay, “The Case of Torture” by Michael Levin, discusses when the use of torture on a terrorist is necessary. Levin provides scenarios of life changing events. In which he thinks torture would be the best method to save the lives of many. He attempts to convince the reader that torture is “morally mandatory” in our society.

In this paper, I will begin by outlining Shue’s argument that while there may be some rare circumstances in which torture would be morally permissible, laws against torture should not be less severe, as torture does not satisfy the constraint of possible compliance (CPC), and other moral considerations. I will argue that since the cessation of torture cannot be guaranteed by the torturer, interrogational torture does not satisfy the CPC. Then, I will consider the objection that in practice, torture systems can ascertain the compliance needed by the victim, and can ensure this compliance is within the victim’s power. I will conclude by countering this point, as systems of torture have proven to be unreliable, and generally, unnecessary.

The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing a person for an act that he is suspected of having committed. Torture also includes intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when a person acting in an official capacity inflicts pain or suffering (Convention Against Torture para. 2). Although some people believe that torture is acceptable, in reality it is neither an acceptable nor a reliable method for obtaining information and should not be continued.

The history of torture in Europe may seem at first to be a steady progression of barbarous tactics, leading from one social purge to the next, but this is not completely the case. Torture has been used in a progression from primitive methods to the present more modern styles. It has also developed extensively, both in severity and variety of methods used. But in the end, torture has gone full circle; modern forms of torture are more like those methods used by savages than anything in between. Overall, the severity of torture has fluctuated, growing and receding with the passing of each new time period, but eventually reverting to its original state.

In “The Case for Torture”, philosophy professor Michael Levin attempts to defend using torture as a means to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Throughout the article, Levin provides persuasive arguments to support his essay using clever wording and powerful, moving examples. However, the essay consists heavily of pathos, fallacies, and “What if?” situations that single out torture as the only method of resolution, rendering the argument hypothetical, weak, and unreliable for the city of San Jose as a whole community to follow.

This topic relating to the Death penalty crisis that is happening in the US has brought to attention the purpose of the constitution’s definition of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. To many US citizens, harsh interrogation methods on prisoners and war criminals has been believed to be one of the only methods to get confidential information from detainees when methods of negotiation and bargaining fail to convince the detainee. Not only is it in effect on US prisons with cases of conspiracy, murder, and other severe cases, but also overseas on war prisons like Guantanamo bay as well as other countries.

With the issues going on in the Middle East today and the war on terrorism, the use of torture including murder, is a very widespread and controversial issue. Torture is viewed as morally wrong; therefore it is also legally wrong as well, not just on the home front but internationally as well (Is Torture Ever Justified). However, torture is sometimes not only right, but is needed for a greater good. With the case of torture you may not be able to see whether it is clearly wrong or right. This essay will address three situations where torture may be viewed as correct on a moral standpoint. It is clearly and completely wrong if torture is used on an innocent victim without a true greater good trying to be achieved. Saving innocent lives, taking down terrorists, and punishing them in institutions are cases where torture is should be sound. Even more so, torture in those cases should be welcomed as methods of punishment and further advancement in situations where intelligence needs to extracted for the saving of lives or the take down of terrorist activities. In no way should the use of torture be legalized for the use of the public, but in uses for the armed forces and law enforcement there should be rules and regulations that protect them if the use of torture is absolutely necessary.

The notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by

Water boarding, removal of limbs, drilling holes into the body, electric shock, and crucifixion. All of these are methods of a subject called torture, or the act of which one inflicts physical or psychological pain for purpose of degrading, intimidating, controlling, or getting information (“Torture”). Throughout history, these have all been reasons for torturing people; however, whether or not torture should still be allowed is a topic of debate. There is a long and detailed history of torture, along with numerous reasons people are tortured today, and survivors face a wide variety of mental and physical effects.

One of the greatest violations of human rights is torture. Torture is not simple to define but the most generic definition is the execution of physical distress upon others through brutality and assault, for different reasons most of the time for extracting data or for a declaration of guilt, however sometimes it is for the delight of being sadistic. Jonathan Power describes it as “the systematized use of violence to inflict the maximum amount of pain in order to extract information, to break resistance, or simply to intimidate” (O’Bryne 2003, p.140). Torture is a very old process; however, it has evolved with the civilization. According to the great writer Victor Hugo “torture has ceased to exist”; however that is definitely not true since torture has become a notion that is sold and bought in a market (O’Bryne 2003, p.144). In the last hundred years, torment techniques have evolved into being more clinical, more specialized, torture gear have evolved into a product to be purchased and sold on the market, governments have traded tips on effective torment methods – entirely despite of the fact that torment has become banned as per international law. Humans for a few hundred thousand years existed without utilizing torment; just in the last couple of thousand has it turned into a weapon of state.