Against Torture Essay

Ethical Arguments For And Against Torture
International conflict has evolved in recent decades from wars among nations to cat–and–mouse
games of terrorism and counterterrorism between nations and non–state factions. National defense
requires the development of reliable intelligence to prevent horrific acts of violence. The U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency's use of enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from
suspected terrorists has led to considerable debate of the morality and usefulness of torture. The
moral dilemma asks whether agents of a democratic government should disregard the nation's
founding principles of liberty and the rule of law for the purpose of preventing a potential act of
violence against its citizens. The answer to the moral question has policy implications about the
conduct and costs of national...show more content...
This essay will explore the moral arguments for and against torture and the policy implications of
those arguments. The moral defense of torture, however, ultimately rests on unrealistic scenarios and
would require policies that, in themselves, pose ethical challenges. The United States can do better
than resort to torture to protect itself. 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.
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Arguments Against Torture
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? On the side against torture is has lots of negative consequences. it is against all human rights
to have torture in the world. it is against all human rights to have torture in the world. On the side
against torture is has lots of negative consequences. Each act of torture makes it easier to accept the
use of torture in the future. The Interrogator never...show more content...
patterns of violence and humiliation resurface with sinister action begin to resurface. In the days,
we live in we try to not kill the people being tortured but after they are broken put them in a jail
cell. in the medieval times, it was usually tortured to death instead of how we do it today. Torture
still pledges but can change by making laws they can end torture or reduce it a lot.in the future
there could be the end of torture but it will take a big leap and support from a lot of people and
countries to end torture.
A couple of horrible actions torture has made. The Judas Cradle involved prisoner being lowered
on a small pyramid and tied down stretching the anus or vagina creating permanent damage. Saw
torture involved like the title says they used a saw and would cut them in half from longitudinally
and in some cases transversely. The Breaking Wheel was used to rope the person to the wheel and
the person bone would break because the rope and spokes of the wheel would over all break every
bone on their body. The Iron chair would have 100's of spikes be imbedded deep in the person's flesh.
How pictures of torture tend to create hate in nations. The use of torture that is inhumane like
sexually, desecration, or even just because they torturer felt "because they felt like it" scenario. This
gives triggers that tend to create hostility. How media and propaganda expands threats shown and
the ways their people was

Kant Against Torture
Part I:
1.
Kant's seventh proposition within his "Idea for a United History" that sees its as necessary for
states working together before NGO's or other political organizations such as the UN can be set up
and successfully established. His desire to set into motion the idea of perpetual peace should be the
result not the driving force behind nations working together.
2.
a) ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights
treaty that protects human rights and freedom in Europe drafted in mid 20th century
b) CAT:United Nations Convention against Torture
treaty by the UN that prevents use of torture against people world wide
c) ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
treaty that holds countries responsible...show more content...
The move is based on the notion that the current Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, has waged a
war on his own people who oppose him. The Syrian conflict has killed more than 100,000 Syrians
and has forced millions to go abroad. Despite these harrowing facts, before the United States and its
allies consider an intervention into the country, a number of details have to be examined deeply and
using numerous schools of thoughts and perspectives. There is a lot at state in the country and one
cannot afford to overlook in calculating the decision to intervene. In order to do so, one must first
consider the dimensions of the ethical dilemma faced by the West in deciding what actions to take
against ISIS. The self–proclaimed Islamic State occupies around 30% of Syria and rules according to
harsh Islamic law and commits mass murders and horrendous human rights violations. The jihadist
organization claims that its acts of terror against foreigners are retribution for the American
drone–oriented bombings of ISIS in Syria. The moral philosophy, ethical thinking and deontological
rights of Syrians have to play a role in whether the United States intervenes or not. What should be
done, if anything, about the impeding human rights catastrophe that has resulted from the Syrian
conflict? What does the mainstream debate about Syria and the

Argumentative Essay On Torture
Torturing has been around for ages, from ancient Egypt with their slaves up to this date. Torturing
can sometimes be described as interrogation so to disguise the harsh implications that we know as
torturing. Even when it is called interrogation it does include some sort of physical and mental
infliction and damage. We know torture these days to get information from captives, especially in
the war against terrorism. With all the research, I did for this argument in this class I change my
belief as against torture where I was for it in the beginning. With the research, I did it just seems as
an unreliable tool to extract information from captives because under extreme pain the human mind
will say anything to make it stop no matter if it's...show more content...
Also, "the prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus
cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law and is so fundamental as to supersede
all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens)" (https://www.hrw.org).
Premise 3 and 4 has a lot of research you can gather to support it because there is so many
scientific research in it. An example is coming from a 6,000–page study of the CIA program that was
inflicted on terrorism suspects after 9/11. The study states, which was released in December 2014,
"That the agency's harsh methods failed to glean any intelligence not available through softer
tactics" (google.com). Shane O'Mara, a professor of experimental brain research at Trinity College
Dublin states, "Torture can produce false information by harming those areas of the brain
associated with memory" (google.com), therefor torture is an ineffective way of gathering intel.
Since torturing involves heavy inflicted pain, this causes the person to be in a state of "do anything
to get out of it". Meaning the victim will give any information valid or invalid just to have them
stop, even if it is for just for a few minutes. Premise 5 has to do with the lasting

Michael Levin's Argument Against Torture
Torture Can Be Permissible
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...show more content...
He says that the lives that the terrorists are threatening are "at risk unintentionally, not having
asked to be endangered" (Levin 607). However, the terrorist has acted intentionally, and thus loses
the ability to be judged by "civilized standards" and cannot complain if a civilized society uses
torture to stop him. However, Levin warns that torture should only be used if the person to be
tortured is known to threaten innocent lives. How can we be sure? According to Levin, terrorists
do not act anonymously. Their goal is public recognition. So, for Levin, the rule regarding torture
should be "Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents" (Levin
607). This way, he says, there will never be any confusion about who is civilized and who is not.
As long as governments use this rule, there is no fear of being criticized for torture.
Thus, Levin makes a logical argument that torture can be permissible if a terrorist or other criminal
is known to be threatening innocent lives if the torture is used to save those lives. Torture must not
be used as punishment but as a means to extract information that will stop an outrage planned for the
future. He dismisses all the arguments against torture and those in favor of the rights of the terrorist
by saying that the lives of the threatened innocents also have rights, and their rights outweigh those
of the

Ethical Arguments Against Torture
Discussions concerning torture have always been controversial and upsetting. For the benefit of
many, torture seems excusable and permissible when it is guaranteed to yield vital and necessary
information. Even from an act utilitarian standpoint, torture is acceptable when its actions produce
the highest happiness in numbers. But from a rule utilitarian perspective, torture violates universal
truths and is not effective everywhere at all times, since it is not always guaranteed to produce the
same result. This essay will argue against torture on the basis that it is unethical no matter what the
situation is or who the suspect may be. The Oxford English Dictionary provides two main entries to
define the word torture and, for the sake of the unusual circumstances presented in the time–bomb
case, the second entry will be used as a springboard for the rule utilitarian argument against
torturing a suspect and/or his child. According to the OED's second entry, the definition of torture
is "To inflict severe pain or suffering upon; to torment; to distress or afflict grievously; also, to
exercise the mind severely." By examining this definition, emphasis should be placed on two main
parts: 1. To inflict severe pain or suffering upon and 2. To exercise the mind severely. We will work
from these parts to break down the...show more content...
The act of torture itself has the effect of a double–edged sword on the suspect and the torturer. "To
exercise the mind severely" is not just a definition limited to the suspect but encompasses all
participants of the torture as well. The psychological stresses that result from this leave lasting
effects on the victim and the perpetrator and do nothing for the morale of either. It also reduces the
perpetrator and his country to a primitive state of justice and leaves an embarrassing trail of
unnecessary and endless

Arguments For Torture
Torture 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. According to Michael Levin's
article, "The Case for Torture," his view on torture is that there are many situations in which torture
would be against the law but would be obligatory for someone's conscious. One common example
used is the ticking time bomb situation. The situation is that if there was an atomic bomb located
somewhere in Manhattan ready to detonate soon, and

Essay about Torture Against Human Rights
Torture Against Human Rights Iain Banks once stated on the topic of torture, "torture is such a
slippery slope; as soon you allow a society or any legal system to do that, almost instantly you get
a situation where people are being tortured for very trivial reasons" (goodreads). When used in the
appropriate way, torture can be very effective; however, it is often taken advantage of and is never
acceptable. It has shown in the past that once a country has been accused of using torture, all
credibility is lost and they are understandably looked down on. Torture is an extreme violation of
human rights. Torture was started by early Romans dating back to 530 A.D. It was usually mainly
used on criminals and slaves. Although they were...show more content...
It was very painful way to die that involved extreme suffering, which is the reason why they used
these types of torture. Today most torture is used in the military against terrorists. The United
States is a big country that is accused of using torture. Guantanamo Bay is a camp in Cuba where
the United States sends captured Taliban fighters. While they are there they are interrogated by
means of torture. The Detainee Treatment Act was passed in response to what happened at Abu
Ghraib in Iraq. The act banned the inhumane, cruel, or degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S
military custody. On September 27, 2005, Private First Class Lynndie R. England and nine other
Army Reserve enlisted soldiers were sentenced to three years in military prison for abuse and
torture of prisoners. There was a photograph of England with a naked Iraqi prisoner on a leash
(treatment of daintees). No matter if this is the enemy or not, this is not acceptable. No human being
should be forced to suffer this kind of abuse. Although they were sentenced to prison, if torture
wasn't allowed in the first place this would have never happened. After this happened, President
Bush made a big deal out of banning torture and treating prisoners not like animals, but like they are
still people. However, he vetoed a bill that would have prevented the CIA from using interrogation
techniques, such as waterboarding. It was still included in the US Army's manual on

Argumentative Essay On Torture
The events that occurred on the date of September 11th will never be forgotten. Millions of
Americans watched as two hijackers crashed a plane into the World Trade Center. The towers,
filled with smoke, broken glass, and debris, collapsed and killed thousands. This event left a large
impact on Americans. Many began to wonder how we could prevent such a tragedy from
occurring again. After President Bush's proposal of preemptive war, ideas of using torture for
terrorists emerged. It was seen as a way to get information from terrorists quickly in order to
prevent the loss of life. However, torture is not a viable way to prevent the loss of life because it is
inhumane, violates the American standard, and is ineffective. To begin with, torture is inhumane.
Michael Levin, author of Case for Torture, believes that because terrorists have "[renounced civilized
standards]" (Levin 95) they are not subject to protection under the law. However,...show more
content...
The most well–known support for torture is the "ticking time bomb" scenario. The author of "Case
for Torture" gives an example of this by asking the reader to "suppose a terrorist has hidden an
atomic bomb on Manhattan Island" (Levin 95) but will not "disclose where the bomb is" (95). In
doing this, the reader reflects on how effective torture would be in this specific situation. However,
the argument fails to address that torture is not the only way to gain information or more
importantly, that it is the correct information. Neurologist Lawrence Hinkle, who examined Korean
War veterans after communist "brain–washing" stated that "any circumstance that impairs the
function of the brain potentially affects the ability to give information and well as the ability to
withhold it" (Arrigo 547). This proves that just because torture is being used does not guarantee that
the terrorists will give all information up. They can easily create a lie or withhold the truth.
Therefore, torture is

Is Torture Ever Acceptable? Essay
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something
against their own will. The word "torture" comes from the Latin word "torquere," which means to
twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was
perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any
circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the
condition. From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong and unacceptable. Many religious people are
against this act of violence because they see it as a violation of the dignity of a human being.
Humans have the right to not have intentional harm upon...show more content...
The attacks of September 11 brought to attention the debate on torture. The scenario describes an
imaginary scene in which a enormous weapon was to unleash and a prisoner is known to have
information on the attack but won't say anything. The United States was faced with a question of
whether to torture the prisoner or allow millions of civilians to die. The reason that this scenario
doesn't back up the statement that torture is acceptable sometimes is that it seems to "perfect."
The conditions are too calculated to actually happen in real life. There are many factors that come
into play in situations like this that affect the outcome. It also doesn't seem as easy as to just
torture one person to save a thousand. The event of torturing doesn't end at that one time; the
United States is the most powerful country in the entire world. It sets an example for the rest of
the world. One person being tortured will lead to many more to be tortured. Let's pretend that
there is nothing wrong with torture and that is it not a controversial issue. What good is using
torture to obtain information? The use of torture is almost never effective. People that use this
process will only hear what they want to hear or the information might not be as reliable.
"Someone who is being tortured will happily say that grass is blue and the sky is green if he
believes it'll end the torture." Even if the information was to be reliable, it can be

Argument Against Torture
Most of the controversy surrounding the use of torture is rooted in the ethical reasoning that is used
to justify it. Before 9/11, it would have been incredibly hard to justify the use of torture or enhanced
interrogation techniques on known terrorists and prisoners of war. The very idea of torturing another
human being would force the American people to put aside some of their most cherished morals and
beliefs, in a way that would render ourselves no better than the enemy and strip ourselves of the
moral high ground. The culture of the United States, and other developed countries, made torture a
longstanding unacceptable taboo and violation of basic human rights and dignity. Torture was an
unnecessary, unethical, and unreliable practice that had no place in American policy before 9/11.
...show more content...
Could the use of torturing ever be justified if it meant that it would prevent another attack such as
9/11? Many philosophers and moral theories tried to ethically and logically argue both for and
against the use of torture of Prisoners Of War (POW). "The basic parameters of this debate revolve
around the question whether there should be an absolute prohibition against torture or whether,
under carefully specified circumstances, it is a lesser evil to torture a suspect for information to
prevent a greater evil that menaces society." In other words, could the suffering of one or more
persons through the act of torture be justified if it meant that others would be saved from suffering,
could torture be justified if it meant preventing another catastrophic event such as 9/11? Is torture
and other aggressive interrogation techniques ever a viable and ethical solution for today's leaders,
or should it be condemned and strictly

Argument Against Torture
The use of torture has been the subject of debate for centuries. With the growth of terrorism in recent
years, the debate has become hotter as people justify torture or forbid it. There is no question,
however, that the use of torture on captured criminals has reduced potential attacks on innocent
civilians. Idebate.org contests that "With the use of modern technologies by intelligence services
and the co–operation and exchanges of information between different intelligence agencies around
the world, the likelihood of catching the wrong person has slimmed significantly." This means that
the terrorist in question is almost certainly the culprit. It is reasonable that torture be used on people
that have homicidal intentions. Torture is necessary in today's society due to the increase ofviolence
because terrorists disregard the law, the time–ticking bomb scenario, and the fact that torture can
deter other potential terrorists. If torture becomes illegal, then terrorists will have no obligation to
give up their information. Under normal circumstances, where the accused is kept in a safe
environment with no physical or psychological detriments, the terrorist will...show more content...
All they need to do is sustain an interrogation until that happens. This "time–ticking bomb" scenario
could kill countless people if no torture is used. One example of this is a case in Nigeria where
"explosives strapped to a girl detonated at a crowded marketplace in Nigeria, killing at least 20
people and injuring 18 others, according to police" (Abubakar). This could have been prevented if
a terrorist was forced to give the information before the bombing happened. Torture is justified in a
case like this because the cost of torturing and potentially destroying the life of one person and
securing the protection of civilians is better than the risk of killing a large quantity of

Why Do We Go Against Torture
Torture is not acceptable in any cases, and if it is, then never to the point of death. There are three
reasons why torture is unacceptable. Reason 1: Hurting people is wrong, especially if they did not
do anything or know anything. Reason 2: Peace, Love, and Harmony are the things people are
fighting for and why wreck it if we fought for it for a long time and still haven't achieved it. Reason
3: Traumatic experiences of torture, which could make the victim want to torture someone else like
the bullying theory.
My first reason why I say hurting innocent people is wrong, especially if they didn't do anything or
know anything. Why make someone feel pain for no reason, it's just being cruel for no apparent
reason. " I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good
intelligence, but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he
thinks his captors want to hear, true or false, if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often,
information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading." This statement was from
Senator John McCain....show more content...
Peace is a good word to use when talking about torture. "We hold these truths to be self–evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and

Arguments Against Torture
Under no circumstances should torture be an acceptable method to gain intelligence. In specific
situations, stress positions can be adequate as long as they're still within the parameters of the
Geneva Conventions. The United States signed the document at the Convention Against Torture and
thus needs to uphold the conditions of the agreement. Through the works of Hooks and Mosher and
the Torture Memos, I hope to justify my belief that torture is unacceptable.
The torture memos outline the basis for the Geneva Conventions. It is understandable that people
may act irrationally and in fear after what occurred on 9/11. However, that does not justify the
inhumane act of torture. Although the Department of Justice and somewhat the Department of...show
more content...
However, it has come to light that torture methods have been used by the United States government.
The best way to prevent torture from happening is to identify how it was justified. First, these
authors look at the bad apple theory. This theory is that some low–level guys continued to push the
torture further even though they were not advised to. By following through with this claim the
United States fired lots of low level officials hoping that it would solve the issues. The issue with
this is that the low–level people were getting instruction from someone higher up, and were therefore
taking responsibility for the people in charge. Clearly, the bad apple scenario was not the issue for
the United States. The next theory that the authors look at is called the elites explanation. This states
that the people in charge of the United States government are the ones in charge for this. Although
convincing, I do not believe this is entirely true. I think that there are flaws in the system that end up
leading to the abuse of power. Thus, this leads to the final theory known as the structural
explanation. This states that there is callous cruelty in information gathering and there is
dehumanization of torture. These are clearly two flaws within our system. The first is that people
are falling into the idea that is more important to get information than to follow someone's basic
human rights. I think this is wrong and does not give a valid reason for

Why Torture Should Be Avoided
Torture: Why It Should Stop
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological
consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be
ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically
damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless,
why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the
risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
Tortured prisoners give false information. One writer writes "Many survivors of torture report that
they would have said anything to make the torture...show more content...
Also, People who would like to "leak" information about what they know, may feel scared to do so,
because of what they think might happen to them. This is why torturing ANYONE is not effective.
It complicates further operations and puts a strain on your relation. As one writer puts it "Winning
the "hearts and minds" of communities around the world is a key objective in combating violence
against civilians" ("Why Torture Makes Us less Safe"). However, that relationship doesn't work
when you torture civilians or people of interest because you think they know something! If people
are tortured and it is later found out that they are innocent, what type of country would we look like?
Or what happens when we accidentally kill someone with information during torture? Torture
messed up our relations with other countries, and makes further operations two times harder.
Last but not least, Torture is a slow gruesome process that causes the prisoner to shut down and
conjure up false memories.it is not as effective or glamou. As a former FBI agent says torture
techniques used by the Bush administration were ""ineffective, slow and unreliable" and caused the
prisoner to stop talking. ("EX–FBI Interrogator Torture "Ineffective"). Methods like sleep deprivation
take almost 180 hours to complete and certain situations that amount of time won't be available. In a
"tick tock" situation, you can't afford to waste 180 hours waiting

Michael Levin The Case Against Torture
The Case Against Torture
In "The Case for Torure" Michael Levin executes poor grammar, inadequate evidence, and
ridiculous ideas to voice his opinion. The grammar is what is to be expected from a high school
student, not that of a philosophy major. His facts are insufficiently backed up, and he provides no
evidence, or rebuttals whatsoever. The entire paper is more of an opinion than an intelligent
argument.
Levin, a philosophy professor at the City University of New York, employs immature grammar and
sentence structure to get his opinion across. There are several misspellings, and misplaced words
throughout. For example, in the title, torture is spelled torure, also later in the paper instead of
saying "he," he puts "I he", and "Ah, but...show more content...
Most of his reasoning orbits around the fact that capturing a terrorist on the day of a suspected attack
and torturing him until he admits to said crime, or says what the torturers want him to say will save
thousands or even millions of people is absurd. There are so many factors included in pin pointing
a crime on an individual, that the premise of coming to the conclusion of who is guilty in a short
period of time correctly is almost inconceivable. If it is so arduous to determine if a suspect is
actually guilty, then how can it be appropriate to torture those who you only assume committed, or
were planning to commit mass crimes? Also, the premise that torturing an individual will actually
get a truthful response out of them is senseless. If one is being tortured to admit to something,
wouldn't they just admit to it, no matter if they are actually guilty or not, to stop said torture? The
whole idea of torture is very asinine. There is no way to know if the person is admitting because they
are guilty, or because they want the torture to stop. Levin compares assassination to torture, those
two aren't even close to being parallel. The act of assassination is killing someone without the
ulterior motive of getting information out of them, the act of torture, if executed by our government,
is executing physical and mental pain on an individual with an end goal of achieving certain
information. The two shouldn't even be placed in the same category. The outlandish uses of
examples and comparisons just further contribute to the fact that Levin has no real understanding on
the subject at

Geneva Convention Against Torture Essay
I enjoy reading your post. The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other forms
of cruel, Inhuman, or degrading treatment, the International covenant on civil and political rights.
All of these treaties are then codified in U.S. law, and in relevant part they add up to three things:
One, you can never torture. That is to say, you can never intentionally inflict extreme or serious
harm, whether physical or mental; serious physical or mental injury. Second, you can never engage
in what is known legally as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment I agree with you terrorist should
be charged for their wrongdoing harsh punishment, it is what they deserved without any doubt and
they should be brought to justice to get the punishment

The Convention Against Torture Essay
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular,
torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of
norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against
torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US,
Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the
Convention.
Israel has used torture since at least the 1970's. It was not till 1991 that Israel ratified the Convention
...show more content...
At Guantanamo Bay people of over 35 different nationalities still remain in an almost lawless part of
Cuba and held in conditions which are cruel, and inhuman, receiving degrading treatment, and no
access to courts. The US places an enormous double standard on torture violations because it has
always portrayed itself as upholding human rights, and specifically the negative rights of humans to
not be tortured.
Torture in Guantanamo included beatings, sleep deprivation, prolonged containment in
uncomfortable positions, prolonged hooding, sexual and cultural humiliation, forced injections, and
other physical and psychological torture. In more graphic reports of torture, in Abu Gharaib
detainees were hooded naked, sodomized, beaten, forced to stand with electrical wire attached to
genitalia while balancing on a box, having venomous snakes bite them, forced to get in sexual
positions with each other naked, forced to masturbate while hooded, had chemical lights broken and
the phosphoric liquid poured on them.
These acts of torture done by the US were only exposed due to the continuing efforts of people
who are against torture. If it was not for regimes such as the Convention against Torture, Abu
Gharaib and Guantanamo would not have received so much exposure. There is not a person now
who does not know what the US has done to its prisoners of war.

Torture Against Women
Violence and torture against women is an accepted form of submission that is institutionalized and
encourages the assault of the body, mind and sexuality. During the time of civil war and the Taliban
regime, the extremist took the role of enforcing repercussions resulting from disobedience in the
form of rape, gang rape, public beatings, mutilation, and torture (Sharif, 2015). The society promotes
men – husband, father or brother, to decide how the women in their family will look, dress, marry,
the activities she will engage in, and if she is allowed to pursue education. This absence of choice
is reflective of the patriarchal society which still exists within Afghanistan. For any disobedience of
a women towards the men in her life brings...show more content...
Ignorance on behalf of nation states to provide a solution to social calamity across the globe caused
the marginalized and racialized to be removed, displaced and exiled. When they found refugee in a
new host country, they are likely to become re–victimized and re–traumatized. For, the critical social
theory analyzes and addressed the reoccurance of re–victimization of individuals who have already
experienced

Against Torture Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Help Me Write My Essay Cambridge

More from Help Me Write My Essay Cambridge (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Against Torture Essay