Argument Against Torture

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 of violence 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
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

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

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

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

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

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.

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 ofhuman
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

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 andsentence 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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
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

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

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

Argument Against Torture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Argument Against Torture