Persuasive Essay Torture

Persuasive Essay Torture
A terrorists broadcasts a video claiming he's placed three bombs in three different locations around the United States, with 24 hour timers. The World
goes into fear, panicking about their lives and families lives being in danger. The military takes quick action, pinpointing the broadcast location and
having the man arrested in less than an hour. However, one thing that comes to mind is how to approach and negotiate with these terrorist in these
types of situations. Questionnaires don't work against these ruthless humans, but the military has found out in the past that torture can lead to crucial
information. Yes, torture may seem inhumane and unlawful to do, but most torture techniques are actually legal and justifiable. As a result, the military
should continue to use torture as a form of interrogation since it has proved ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
. .and we would have learned a great deal less without these techniques'"(Politico, "Should America Torture?, Gordon/Gerstein). Former official in the
Bush administration even agreed to revert to torture for answers, saying that "..It works. One of the reasons assertive interrogation techniques have
been used is because they work" (Politico, "Should America Torture?", Gordon/Gerstein). On the other hand, the military doesn't have time to question
an enemy like a terrorist, especially as a timer is winding down on a bomb. The military would need immediate answers to situations like these, and
others such as enemy/terrorist groups or where hostages are being hidden. Thus, justifying why torture should be used for interrogation. Especially
under circumstances when innocent lives of kids and families are in unknown danger. No one needs to go through the pain of seeing their loved one's
life being taken away by unjustified
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Abolition Of Torture Summary
The topic of torture is one that is very controversial and should not be taken lightly. Torture is used to break a person apart, physically and mentally, in
order to get what you want from this person. Krauthhammer's "The Truth About Torture: It's Time to be Honest About doing a Terrible Thing" and
Sullivan's "The Abolition of Torture" are two different views on torture and whether or not it should be made legal and the moral complications that
arise in certain situations. Although torture is a monstrous and horrible thing, there are two cases (ticking time bomb and high level terrorist problem)
where you have to reconsider whether or not torture can be morally justified. To expand, I will undoubtedly have to disagree with Sullivan's approach
and outline the different problems he poses with his argument. Ultimately, Krauthhammer made the stronger case in which there are two cases where
torture is morally the right thing to do and should be applied legally (but carefully) in the judicial system in order to... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Sullivan argues that we should never torture terrorists, but instead, "We need human intelligence from Muslims and Arabs prepared to spy on and
inform on their neighbors and friends and even family and tribe members" (Sullivan, 13). Even if these informants were willing to give information to
America, how do we know that that information is accurate and is not a ploy to divert our attention elsewhere. It seems unlikely that Muslim and Arab
civilians would be prepared to risk their lives like that. The conditions would have to be getting a civilian who is deep in the terrorist community,
willing to betray their family or members, and then believe his information is true 100%; this seems unlikely. The chance of discovering important
information during torture is better than hoping for information (that is correct) to just come to

Ethical Use Of Torture Essay
The thin line between humanity and safety has been blurred. The world stood in shock on September 11th 2001 when a terrorist group known as
al–Qaeda hijacked four airliners and successfully flew two of them into the World Trade Centers in New York and one into the Pentagon. These
atrocities resulted in the death of more than two thousand and seven hundred victims, including citizens from over eighty nations (9/11 Report). The
magnitude of these attacks was unprecedented in the history transnational warfare and elicited security implications worldwide. Only a few hours after
the attack, American President George W. Bush declared a United States led war on terror in order to the security and life of citizens from future
terrorist attacks. The war on terror brought a novel form of combat, posed new issues to the United States and the international community, and lead to
the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, when British officers interrogated a group of terrorist suspects, they confessed while being tortured and said they had got their training
from al–Qaeda soldiers in Afghanistan, when in actuality, they were taught in the United Kingdom (Bellamy). In order for an interrogation to be
successful the essential information must be elicited within the first few hours of the terrorists' arrest or else the terrorist group will alter their plans
once they find out one of their own has been arrested, subsequently the information given by the captured terrorist becomes worthless. Also, the abuse of
human rights through torture techniques will add further hate–sentiment between the United States and the Islamic people

Consequentialist Perspective
Morality tells us that something is morally right if it is morally permissible, and morally wrong if it is morally impermissible, but this does not tell us
what actions, if any, are intrinsically wrong, no matter what the circumstances are. The consequentialist view of morality holds that an act is the right
one if and only if it produces more good consequences over bad consequences, overall. Again, this does not tell us what actions are good or bad, just
that the consequences are the only thing that matters when morally judging an act. In this essay I will argue, from the Consequentialist perspective,
that torturing someone, even if this was the only way in which we could obtain information that would save thousands of lives is morally wrong... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
All of which have far more negative consequences overall than positive ones. The US reportedly spent more than one hundred and eighty million
dollars just to contract in psychologists who helped to establish a system of torture that they could use against suspected terrorists and the like. This is
just one of the discoveries made after The Senate Intelligence Committees report of CIA torture. It also reports of some of the most gruesome
techniques such as rectal rehydration and feeding, and the infamous waterboarding. The report shows us that the CIA's 'enhanced interrogation'
techniques to be brutal and ineffective. The mental health, not only of the tortured person, but also of the person doing the torturing also is completely
disregarded. Torture is not possible without the dehumanizing of the interrogator in order to be able to torture a defenseless human

Is Torture Ever Acceptable?
Is torture ever acceptable? According to the UN Convention Against Torture, any infliction of torture1 i.e. waterboarding is banned under international
law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. The point of contention is whether torture under any circumstances should be entirely
prohibited. This opinion piece will be centered towards the debate regarding interrogation using torture methods and argue that torture is never
acceptable from the moral and utilitarian perspectives. Strong advocates of anti–torture laws will give you a straightforward answer, that torture should
be banned because it's immoral and impractical. It is unpleasant, insufferable and a clear violation of human rights. From the moral... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Let me illustrate my point with another case. It is a more severe mistake to wrongly convict an innocent person guilty as compared to letting a guilty
man go off scot–free. Drawing a comparison, subjecting what could be an innocent man to torture in order to derive crucial information would be far
worse and morally unjust. What's worse is that the physical and psychological damages that have been dealt to the detainee is irreparable harm that will
haunt him for eternity. I do not deny that torturing has a certain, though limited extent of usefulness. Quoting New York Times report in 20091,
President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues that the banned harsh interrogation techniques by the U.S did help to produce useful
information that helped the nation in it's struggle against terrorism. The obtained information was valuable and there was no way of knowing if it
could be obtained any other way. However, it must be noted that torture is only effective if the detainee is indeed guilty. There is unfortunately, no
foolproof way of knowing this for certain. Hence in actual reality, torture is ineffective as it might result in the unintended death of the prisoner and
counter–productive as it might lead to false information that was thrown out by the detainee as a desperate attempt to survive the torture techniques or
as a

The Torture Of The United States Essay
Torture has been used throughout history to obtain pertinent information from terrorists of the state by using many different techniques both physical
and emotional. The definition of torture as it pertains to gaining information is any "act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession" according to the
Convention Against Torture. The legality of torture has been discussed within the international community multiple times creating multiple treaties.
Such treaties came from the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
While the countries who sign these treaties have an obligation to create effective legislation against the torture of terrorists, some countries still skirt
around the international laws. The United States has used torture in the recent years to obtain intelligence from suspected terrorists. The moral
dilemmas behind these actions are controversial and are debated whether or not such actions should be used to achieve information. While some
organizations believe the torture of terrorists is beneficial to the United States, torture is immoral, unjust, and should not be used by any organization or
state to achieve its goals. The basis for the argument against torture can be affirmed using well known and accepted moral understanding from known

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: The Lauded Ticking Time...
Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along
with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion, disaster has struck! The implausible has just
happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to
this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government's obligation to the people to
ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Which is more than anyone can say for the improvised explosive devices or dirty bombs that the targets wish to unleash upon the people if given the
opportunity. Death and destruction are their chief objectives. Enhanced Interrogation Techniqueshave their situational uses. One major claim is the
lauded Ticking Time Bomb scenario in which the case is laid out in a needs of the many versus the needs of the one format. The premise as given
by Bob Brecher is thus, "Suppose there is good reason to think that someone has planted a bomb in a public place. And suppose there is good
reason to think that it is going to go off in the next two hours or so, and that it is going to kill and maim dozens of people, maybe hundreds. The
question is all too real. Imagine, to bring the example closer to home, that the police or the secret services had known that bombs were shortly to go
off somewhere in Bali, Madrid, Lonon or Sharm–el–Sheikh in the attacks of 2004 and 2005. But no one knows where the bomb is – except one
person, who is already in custody. Naturally they have no intention of revealing where the bomb is. Maybe they have planted it themselves; maybe not.
Either way, they remain silent. Should they be tortured to force them to reveal where the bomb is?"(Torture and the Ticking Bomb 1). In this scenario
there is substantial moral justification for torture. Consider this, law enforcement believes that torturing the target will save

The use of torture has become a prominent matter of...
The use of torture has become a prominent matter of dispute as we enter an age of the global war on terror. The debate on whether it has become
morally permissible to torture terrorists is argued by many as the legitimacy of such actions are brought into question in a world where global terror is
outstanding. With the use of the ticking time bomb scenario, some make a desirable case that in special circumstances, there is a right to torture
individuals implicated is acts of mass violence. Yet many would still argue that there are an array of inconsistencies hidden within the ticking bomb
scenario and there are no circumstances where torture can be morally permissible, no matter what the consequences may hold.
The ticking time bomb ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Like most people who debate the use of torture in global war, Krauthammer agrees that in general interrogation methods it cannot be justified but
believes that the ticking time bomb scenario is the only exception to this justification. Even then he states that it is an issue that should involve highly
specialised individuals who are experts in torture techniques and interrogation. (Krauthammer, 2005:4) If we legitimise torture by means of specialised
and trained individuals in the ticking bomb scenario, is he suggesting that we train people to commit these acts in the way that we gain the crucial
information without inflicting fatal injury? It would be argued then, that Krauthammer's specialised group of individuals with the knowledge in torture
would create a type of torture culture in society and would not only make torture morally permissible in the scenario, but legitimise its use completely.
(Luban, 2005:1446)
Krauthammer's idea of limiting torture techniques to specialised individuals and creating a torture culture conflicts significantly with the right of
torturing individuals in extreme circumstances. A torture culture built upon teaching becomes a form of practice and with that, the activity of torture
becomes a socially organised affair. It becomes a legitimate exercise and in reference to the ticking time bomb scenario, insinuates the normalisation of
torture and a torture culture. (Luban, 2005:1445–46) David Luban claims that

America's Hidden Fear
The United States of America; the strongest nation in the world. This phrase gives fear to others in the world. The United States feels fear as well. In
the atmosphere of prosperity and peace, a cruel and inhumane torture the solution to the fear living in their hearts. The horrendous attack on the World
Trade Center planted a sense of fear and worry in everyone's minds. To avoid losing control of the nation, theUnited States conduct tortuous acts to get
into the minds of terrorists and others suspects. Some may disagree about the new "enhanced interrogation techniques" these criminals experienced but
it is not the only solution to America's hidden fear. Since the September 11, 2001 attack, the United States were persuaded to intensify its

Pitfalls Of Torture Essay
Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.
Thesis: Counterterrorism through interrogation is wrong and leads to false information.
Scientific Perspective
In 2006 the Intelligence Science Board, a civilian board that advises the U.S. Department of Defense on technical and scientific matters, stated that
there was information to support the declaration that torture produces reliable information. Shane O'Mara, a neurobiologist associated with Trinity
College in Dublin, analyzed the interrogation methods of the Bush administration. O'Mara refers to such techniques as "folk psychology," and "are
unlikely to do anything other than ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Another serious pitfall of torture is confabulation (false memories), a resultant of the damage to the prefrontal cortex. A 2008 study showed that pain
and stress retreat further into a murky situation where the detainee cannot tell truth from false knowledge. O'Mara argues that prolonged and sever
stress does not support memory in the brain as stated by some. Coercive interrogations are unlikely to facilitate "the release of veridical information
from long–term memory." Indeed, torture provides the interrogator with false and unreliable information.
Unreliable Information
The act of torture can be traced back to the early history of man and the questionable validity of information extracted goes back as far. The third
century Roman Jurist, Ulpian, wrote that information obtained via torture should not be trusted as some people are "so susceptible to pain that they
will tell any lie rather than suffer it" (Peters, 1996). Nearly two millennia later, the discussion continues and the evidence more and more supports
Ulpian's assertion. Most torture victims will "confess" to any accusation if it will stop the pain. Although there are occasions where accurate
information may be disclosed under duress, numerous victims have reveled that the truthful information that they did revel was interspersed with
fictitious information to appease the interrogators to stop the pain (Conroy 2000). Studies have disclosed that as

The Use Of Torture And Its Effects On The United States
Gaul Rahman, a suspected Afghan radical, was arrested and brought to a CIA–run prison within six weeks of the 9/11 attacks. Rahman was detained
for the purposes of providing inside information on the bombings, as well as to shed light on possible future terrorist attacks to be committed on
United States soil. A month after his arrival at the prison, guards entered his cell to discover a gruesome sight. As quoted by the Senate Intelligence
Committee Report on Torture, "In November 2002, Gaul Rahman was shackled to his cell wall and made to rest unclothed on the bare concrete floor.
The next day, the guards found Gaul Rahman's dead body." The junior officer that insisted on such treatment of Rahman was recommended by the
CIA to receive a cash award of $2,500 for his superior work. Though the CIA praised the officer, many American citizens were appalled at Rahman's
treatment as detailed in the report, and the public became divided over whether Rahman's treatment was humane. The concept of torture as a just means
of security has become a significant source of dispute among the American public. With such divisiveness having the potential to create further discord
in regards to the justice system and additional situations in which the use of torture is considered, a re–evaluation of interrogation policies is crucial to
gain a position of solidarity on the issue. Despite the belief that torture is an effective means of combating terrorism against domestic interests, the need
for

The Pros And Cons Of Torture
"Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self–defeating as a means of control. One wonders it is still
practiced."–– Captain Jean–Luc Picard1
For the purposes of this assignment, I will divide ethical systems into two broad categories. Those categories are deontological ethics and utilitarian
ethics. This is a common division and breaks no new ground. In my experience, many Americans believe in some haphazard combination of the two.
When dealing with the subject of torture, the distinction doesn't matter.
Torture is unethical.
The easiest ethical system to use to tackle this subject is deontological ethics. Deontological ethics include ethical systems that ask, "What is the rule?"
There ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The pragmatist also asks, "What is the result?" As an example of pragmatism's influence in America, the most widely cited federal jurist is Judge
Richard Posner, who is a proponent of pragmatism.8 Posner has stated that torture should be used if it would work in a ticking time–bomb scenario.9
However, Posner's statement is Boolean, allowing for torture only "if" it works in such a scenario. Such scenarios do not actually exist though.10 Even
under pragmatism, while there might be some theoretical scenario where torture would be ethical, there is no real scenario where it would be

Moral Dilemmas In The Ticking Time Bomb
A moral dilemma is typically a case in which the available choices highlight conflicting moral values. In such cases the decision–making agent must
usually choose one option at the expense of the others–thereby effectively choosing one set of perceived values over the others. Consequently, it is
often the case in moral dilemmas that the decision made remains morally questionable no matter which option was pursued. One particularly poignant
moral dilemma can be found in the 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario–often presented as so: A perpetrator of an imminent terrorist attack, a bomb, that will
kill many people, is in the hands of the authorities. He has been interrogated but to no avail. Authorities suspect that he will only disclose the
information needed to prevent the attack if he is tortured. Should he be tortured? Firstly, it must be taken into consideration that there are a number
of possible scenarios for the alleged terrorist of this dilemma. For example: (1) they are an active member of a terrorist organisation and will fully
confess what they know after torture; (2) they are an active member of a terrorist organisation and will fully confess what they know after torture,
however it is not enough, and as they are believed to be withholding information or lying, their torture intensifies and they begin giving false
information; (3) they are a person with few links to terrorist organisations and possess little to no information, however, believed to be withholding

The Legal And Ethical Perspective Of The World War II
Bao, Ke Xin (Ben) Professor Davis English 1A 19 July 2015 Permissible Evil? Throughout the course of human history, enemy combatants of the
defeated forces were generally taken as war prisoners, often expected to confront brutal tortures or agonizing executions. Such trend managed to steer
its way into recent human history. Some of the most atrocious crimes committed against mankind were witnessed during the second World War where
prisoners of war underwent unthinkable torture procedures either to give confessions or for the purpose of human experimentation. Hence, participants
of the Geneva Convention established a standard for the humane treatment of war prisoners in the aftermath of World War II. Nonetheless, the issue of
utilizing violence and torture as a tool of the modern state in forcing submission and upholding security seems to remain a reoccurring discussion.
Thus, it is critical to for us ponder the topic of torture through a legal and ethical perspective along with a thorough knowledge of its implications on
society in order to weigh the permissibility of this evil. The implementation of torture has resurfaced in the context of the "war on terror" during the
Bush Administration. Surprisingly, a large portion of the American public stands as proponents of utilizing this cruel method to obtain information
from detainees. Some firm believers insist that torture is justified in order to maintain the security of this nation. One of such believers is John Yoo, a

The Torture Myth, by Anne Applebaum
In the article, "The Torture Myth," Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The
article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States.
Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of
obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States' torture policy ultimately
produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it...
I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular
attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are
convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not
necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, "nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods'
at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones." Applebaum's second argument for eliminating the torture policy is that it constantly enables the enemy to build
tolerance for the torture. Applebaum uses the example of "radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier." This example clearly
illustrates the fault within the misconception that torture is ultimately effective. There can also be unnoticed and lasting consequences to torture, that
in turn, affect more than the individual country. The global stigma that is labeled upon any country that participates in or allows the torture of wartime
prisoners is remarkably important. The public and self image that the respective country acquires, affects

Arguments Against The Deontological Framework
The opponents argued that the deontology framework was unacceptable. It created impractical standard which cannot be used in catastrophic
circumstances. The scholars who disregard the tortured justification on deontological frameworks argued that torture may be justified under certain
circumstances from consequential grounds. Bufacchi and Arrigo (2006) believed that if it is the lesser of two evils and is better to avoid the great
one. The ticking bomb scenario was acknowledged to describe the situation in which using torture so as to gain the information about the location of
the ticking bomb from the terrorist. In examining, using torture can be regarded as the lesser evil so as then to prevent the greater evil. To develop this
argument,

Should the United States Use Torture to Gather Information
I.Introduction The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be
prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as 'lesser evil
ethics'–a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American's as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within
their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The
disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and
humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al–Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further
annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on
whether torture is right or wrong. In a study done by the Department of Phycology at the University of Montana, study claims that "people's views of
torture are often negative. However,

The Pros And Cons Of Torture
How would it feel if someone you know got tortured just because the CIA had a suspicion on them? Not much evidence or proof, just some doubts
and maybe a few pieces of paper. Ever since the 911 attack, people of various races have been targeted as suspects. More and more torture has been
used against these certain ethnicities. The definition of torture on google is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment.
However, this is only a one sided definition. There is so much more to the word torture. What about the families who have lost a son? The wife who lost
her husband? The daughter who lost her father? America didn't stop from resorting to such harsh techniques when interrogating suspects that were in
Afghanistan, Iraq and GuantГЎnamo Bay. Former detainees in those places have spoken of severe beatings, water–boarding, excruciating stress
positions, mock executions, sleep deprivation and much more.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Using standard interrogation methods, the agents cannot get the terrorist to reveal the location of the "ticking bomb." A ticking bomb scenario is
when a terrorist claims to have set a bomb somewhere and there is a time limit. The "ticking bomb" hypothetical is often cited in discussions on
torture. Many people believe that in such a situation, agents should do anything they can to find the bomb, including torturing the terrorist. Alan
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believes that in real life, torture would be used. He argues that a legal process should be adopted to approve
torture in extreme cases, because this will prevent it from being used in other cases. Some officials favor using torture to get the terrorist to

Institutionalization Of Torture
In this essay I will defend the nature of the balance of civil liberties, rights and torture by drawing upon Jeremy Waldron, Henry Shue and Jeff
McMahan's view on the morality of torture. Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain to an individual who is
restrained and defenseless. In this paper I will argue that torture cannot be morally justified; torture ought not to be legalized or otherwise
institutionalized even in the ticking time bomb scenario because the rights of the innocent against the guilty is not equally balanced and the
idealization/abstraction problem in the ticking time bomb case makes it unrealistic. Allowing the institutionalization of torture will normalize its use,
there will be

Torture Is Not Always Protect The Vulnerable
Torture is not always used to protect the vulnerable; historically it has been used to extract information about the enemy, to bring terror especially
during conflicts and to punish the defeated. Despite the fact that it might seem morally justifiable, it is morally unethical. Torture in this form of
practice is uncontrollable; people lose their lives or became damaged for lifetime. There is not much control over that practice, it can start from
occasional, non–leaving physical permanent injury, and increase to the constant, excruciating torture (the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line.
There is no way of controlling, assigning and or measuring this practice, as such there is no way to tell how much is too much.)... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It corrodes the character of a country." In other words a state should not call itself a highly developed and civilized if it cannot protect the core human
right. The morality of a country that practice torture would not be on a high level. Furthermore both USA and UK, who practiced a torture at some
point in the history, cannot be credible in convincing other nations (names of the nations where torture is practiced?) that torture is bad and should be
forbidden. They would not have a moral authority to do that.
Similarly the 'ticking bomb scenario' is a deception (is deceiving). It illustrates an ideal situation where: the national security officers have knowledge
about the bomb being planted and time of detonation; they arrested the person that holds all the information needed; the person will tell the truth and
give information before the explosion of the bomb. It is impractical as people can give unreliable information under torture in order to stop the
practice. The presented scenario it is not impossible nevertheless the probability of this course of action is very low.
Legal justification of use of torture
In contrary to moral justification of use of torture, international law does not justify 'ticking bomb scenario' or any other scope of torture. As it is laid
down in international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture, the

Human Torture Essay
I.Introduction The American citizens have been wrestling with the question of whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited
from using torture to gather information. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th the American government vowed to do whatever it took to hunt
down those involved. In May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released
on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused President
Bush to publicly apologize. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al–Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further
annihilated the debate. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public has struggled to commit to either side. A
University of Montana study claimed that people's views of torture are often negative. However, those views change in a scenario where they felt
closeness to potential victims. Results from the study suggested that people were considerably more likely to support torture during personal scenarios
compared to distant scenarios. Although, people still perceive torture to be wrong, the study gives insight that many people are willing look past their
moral objections in extreme situations. This essay seeks to answer whether such a horrific tragedy like torture can ever be justifiable. Torture although

Coercive Terrorism And Terrorism
Is it an effective and permissible means to respond to terrorism with the use of coercive interrogation or torture? The assumption that this is the best
means to combat terrorists became justifiable in the minds of numerous people after the attack of 9/11. Interrogation or torture became known as
skillful methods to retrieve information from suspects and to prevent further attacks. Although, the acts of terrorism are devastating, I pose that the use
of coercive interrogation or torture are not effective means to respond to terrorism due to the questionable conjectures and the consequences of
permitting these methods. To begin, the scenario known as the "ticking bomb" prompted attention to the idea that if a person knew where a bomb was
located, and it could kill numerous people, and they chose to be uncooperative by remaining silent, then they should be tortured to reveal information.
However, Brecher (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012) states quite clearly, "No, the consequences of torturing the suspect would be even worse than the
carnage the bomb would cause," (p. 160). The reasons for this logical answer is this scenario "presents no more than a set of highly questionable
conjectures; moreover, the more likely some of its conditions, the less likely the others," Brecher comments (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012). (p. 160).
Obviously, there are so many assumptions to this situation, such as the people who are interrogating know that the person
Debate Paper 5 2 whom they

Arguments Developed By Uwe Steinhoff
The primary arguments developed by Uwe Steinhoff focuses on how the use of torture is morally justifiable in certain situations. He makes a
suggestion to state that if it is justified for soldiers, doctors, policemen and even ordinary people to kill people why should it not be justified to
torture as well. Steinhoff makes arguments based upon situations in which one has the right to use dangerous force in order to prevent harm to ones
self and others. For example, Steinhoff uses the movie Dirty Harry to support his argument on torture being justified he states: The movie Dirty
Harry portrays someone kidnapping a little girl and putting her in a place where she will die if she is not rescued in a certain amount of time. Harry
who pursues the kidnapper corners him, in which the kidnapper raises his arms to surrender. Harry shoots the kidnapper in the leg and asks him where
the little girl is. The kidnapper avoids the question by answering only talking about his rights. Harry with very little time begins to put his foot on the
kidnappers wounded leg in... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
During the process of torture the torturer often humiliates its victims through techniques such as hooding, sleep deprivation, denying toilet facilities,
and by embarrassing them to make them feel less human. The techniques used by torturers often make things easier for them to extract any information
that they might need. Even though it may put a psychological strain on the victim to believe that they deserved to be punished. Nevertheless supporters
of the ticking time bomb may state that training individuals to torture is the only effective way in obtaining what one might need to obtain valuable
information. In my opinion, I believe that Steinhoff made a stronger case, because his views on torture seemed to be more understanding in situations
of an innocence life being in danger and taking matter into their own

Torture Argumentative Essay
Over centuries throughout the world, torture has been a debated and very controversial topic. For the past week, I have read articles written by
four separate authors who share their opinion on the topic. The articles take you through the opinions of the authors and many compelling
arguments. Is torture inhumane? Is torture barbaric? Does the use of torture discredit our moral standings? Could you be given bad intelligence
even with the use of torture? After reading the information provided in these four articles, I have not only become aware of the issues, but I have
also formed my own opinion. According to Michael Levins, "The Case for Torture", over time there have been occasions in which torture is seen as
simply essential and tolerable. One claim Levin uses in his article is an atomic bomb attack made by terrorists. If the suspect is caught and in police
custody, the question is "are the officers suppose to just stick to protocol or should they be doing anything possible to get the information they need
to save all those people?", even if that means to put the man in unbearable circumstances. Levine argues that millions of innocent lives are worth
more than this one mass murder, but we are going to let him win because torture is unconstitutional and barbaric. Levin goes on to explain that if we
can view torture as necessary means in an extreme case like that, we can see that the choice of torture is simply a balancing act of innocent lives and
what it will take to

The Fallacy of the Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario
The ticking bomb scenario is a fallacy. You have a guy in custody. How do you "know" that there is a ticking bomb about to detonate? How do you
"know" that this is the person who has that information? Ultimately you can't "know" those things. You may highly suspect that someone has
information, so then you green light waterboarding suspects. How do the authorities know you haven't planted a bomb in downtown Chicago about to
go off? They'll have to torture you just to make sure. In at least one case, they were also "interrogating" the children of the detainee they thought had
information. One Bush Administration memo said that it would be acceptable to crush the testicles of children in custody if they thought they could
get information. So the Bush Administration authorized torture of children to get information out of their parents who were suspected of having
information.
The ticking bomb scenario makes for an interesting hypothetical scenario, but it has no connection to the real world. The psudo–connection the Bush
Administration and most torture proponents have been giving about "actionable intelligence" resulting from torture is the Bush Administration's claim
that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led to the foiling of the library tower attack. But that makes no sense. The feds foiled the library towers
attack in 2002. KSM wasn't captured until March of 2003. How could anything he said have led to the foiling of an attack that had been foiled the
previous year? 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...
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

The Benefits of Torture
Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along
with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion. Disaster has struck! The implausible has just
happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to
this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government's obligation to the people to
ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of...
This is more than anyone can say for the improvised explosive devices or dirty bombs that the targets wish to unleash upon the people if given the
opportunity. Death and destruction are their chief objectives while pain, anguish and suffering are their language of choice. Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques have their situational uses. One major claim is the lauded Ticking Time Bomb scenario in which the case is laid out in a needs of the
many versus the needs of the one format. The premise as given by Bob Brecher is thus: "Suppose there is good reason to think that someone has
planted a bomb in a public place. And suppose there is good reason to think that it is going to go off in the next two hours or so, and that it is going to
kill and maim dozens of people, maybe hundreds... But no one knows where the bomb is – except one person, who is already in custody. Naturally
they have no intention of revealing where the bomb is. Maybe they have planted it themselves; maybe not. Either way, they remain silent. Should they
be tortured to force them to reveal where the bomb is?" (Torture and the Ticking Bomb 1)
In this scenario there is substantial moral justification for torture. Consider this: law enforcement believes that torturing the target will save thousands
of innocents; law enforcement knows of no other

Persuasive Essay On Torture
people will look at scenarios differently when one scenario is a bombing mission where the soldier is on the plane dropping bombs and the other
is to hear that same soldier killed five innocent girls and their mother (Harris). There is no doubt there will be women and little girls killed from
those bombs dropped at such high points in the sky (Harris). It is just a matter of perspective and how it may sound to the people of the world.
Also, it is a fact that the terrorist group, Al Qaeda tells its detainees to accept torture regardless of what happens to them in U.S (Harris). Al Qaeda
knows America tries to hold their morals and standards very high and America's greatest weapons are their freedom and mercy (Harris). With this
type of policy in place, America will always have a weakness against terrorist groups such as Al– Qaeda (Harris). So, with the enforcement of torture
warrants, there will be no weaknesses against any type of terror group because America can issue a warrant whenever it deems necessary. Also, with
the audience of people that think torture should never be accepted because of how people generally behave in their torturing session, this can be
avoided pharmacologically (Harris). The drug used in the interrogations are called paralytic drugs which makes the one being tortured never to be
seen screaming or writhing in pain (Harris). For all who oppose torture, an image of a dungeon or prison with a chair in the middle of the room and
straps on it should not

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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Mad Bomber Scenario: An Analysis
In the Mad Bomber scenario, I do consider the torturing method to be ethical. You have a man threatening to kill hundreds of people by his own
will. Knowing that you would have people's lives at stake, if you can torture one bad person to save hundreds of good people's lives than you should.
Maybe taking something precious that he cannot live without will get him to cooperate. Not necessarily stating that you would harm his family or
something precious to him. However, if showing him that he would be putting something he loves in danger by allowing the killing of hundreds to
take over he may be able to come out and tell where the bombs are located. In my textbook, it talks about how Utilitarianism is "an action morally
required just because... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If we try to create the greater good for the hundredths of people whose lives are at risk, we would have to consider the consequences to be morally
good. Considering that deontology is very different from utilitarianism. Ethically, acting out of good will is what really matters. Both theories also
have both a positive and negative aspect to it. With utilitarianism we want to allow the goodness, pleasure, or the desire of willing to be morally
good. In reality we strive to live for happiness, but not everyone can be as happy. On the negative aspect we don't want to have to experience pain,
suffering, heartache, and negative experiences. The positive aspects of deontology is defined as a principle of utility, which states that everyone
deserves the same worthiness and equal value. God states the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The madman should
consider that the people who are in danger, have just as much of a right to be alive just like him. However, our decision making process is
influenced by whether duty is a good motive, as philosopher Immanuel Kant explained. By him being a madman, I don't think he would care if he
lived or died since he would refuse to tell me the location of the

Human Torture SHOULD Be Allowed Essay
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... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
After the incident, another question was brought forth: Whether it was time the government decided that desperate times called for desperate
measures, and that torture interrogation was in need. According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is: Any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person,
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (85) And it is also prohibited. But the truth is,
even when being outlawed, torture is still used silently, especially in the interrogation of terrorists. Did it have any effect on the long–term battle
against terrorism of the U.S and the world? According to John McCain, it is a no. In "Torture's Terrible Toll", he wrote about his own experience: I
was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to
my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under

In this paper I will argue that torturing a person is...
In this paper I will argue that torturing a person is never a best way to bring about a much greater good except in extreme emergency situations. I
will also argue that he degree of torture should vary in these extreme emergency situations and the torturer should be able to justify why did he
torture the person. I will elaborate on torture and why I believe it is never the best way to bring about a greater good after a very brief description of
what torture is and under what circumstances people ought to be tortured. Torture is basically inflecting unbearable pain in a person in order to break
his/her will to obtain certain information. Most commonly torture is used on people who are considered as a threat to the nation or simply who defy...
I believe torture is only morally permissible in extreme emergency situations. By extreme emergency situations I mean when there is a risk that
hundreds of people will be killed if the victim does not provide certain information. In the ticking time bomb case, interrogators have tried all the
acceptable methods to get the code to disarm the bomb and have failed to do so and hence it is morally permissible to torture the person to get the
code otherwise we will be putting the lives of millions of people at risks. Also, some cases where torture would be morally permissible are where
the torturer is hundred percent sure that the victim is the perpetrator and has significant information to bring about greater good. This victim can be a
kidnapper, a bomber, a terrorist or even a secret service agent who is selling confidential information. I also believe that while torturing someone the
degree of torture should not be too high and it should be in the knowledge of highest law authority. A medical practitioner should also be present while
torturing a victim so that there should be no risk to the life of the perpetrator. As Henry Shue said that "An act of torture ought to remain illegal" and
anyone has to justify in order defending himself/herself legally (Shue). I strongly believe that under any circumstance torture should not be legalized
whether it is for

Essay about The Ethics of Torture
In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as "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." as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and
white definition, the conditional "...other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions..." have led many to question what precisely this entails.
In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
(Stanford 1) Also, one might be able to analyze the cost–benefit analysis in a specific situation, but what about the next time? Known as 'the calculation
problem', it states that because we cannot always weigh the 'prerequisite to outcome' ratio the same in all situations, it is impossible to make a
morally permissible universal rule, in this case, regarding torture. (Jason 5.8; 2) Next up is Ethical Egoism. Similar to Utilitarianism, it states that
an act is procedurally or morally right. However, it is so only if it benefits the specific individual committing the act at that moment. (Jason 5.2; 1)
Would it benefit an individual to torture someone? The individual could gain something from it such as prestige for diverting a threat or knowledge
otherwise not obtained. But is it worth it? According to Joe Navarro of the F.B.I. "Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected." (NY 1) This is a
question of good over bad for each specific individual to decide if they would or not torture. It cannot therefore be universalized. Enlightened Egoism
on the other hand refers not to immediate effects but to long term effects. With this theory one might consider torture regarding the ticking time bomb
scenario for a number of reasons. Perhaps because in the long run, in would be an inconvenience to live in a nuclear waste land, or because they

Argumentative Essay: Is Torture Ever Justified?
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... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He believes that torture has a substantial ability to produce useful information. Johnson states, "Trump is setting himself apart by promising not just to
fight terrorists, but also to torture them and kill their loved ones –– and to treat all foreign Muslims as suspects by barring them from entry to the United
States" (1). The U.S. is a society which cherishes the idea of liberty, freedom, and human rights.
With such an influential figure who openly supports the use of torture, fail to acknowledge the message it sends to the citizens. To grant permission to
violate another person's human rights and treat them as malicious animals ; will only receive backlash from either citizens or other nations. Without a
doubt, the CIA and many other powerful figures in the government obsess over the use of torture. The question is why support such a inhumane and
cruel act? There are many people who believe that torture should never be used in any circumstances. However in certain situations would torture be
ethical? There is a significant difference between categorical prohibition on torture and an absolute prohibition on torture. Absolute prohibition on
torture neglects the use of torture, assuring that there are better techniques to obtain information. For anyone who would recognize the moral
complexities of such a ban would support categorical

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 on Helpwriting.net
...
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

Hls 410 Essay
Running head: HOMELAND SECURITY 410 – FINAL PROJECT
TOPIC
Provide a synopsis of the article written by Professor Alan Dershowitz. Then identify and describe the critical issues addressed in the article. In your
paper, thoroughly discuss and evaluate the following concepts: the ticking time bomb hypothesis; Dershowitz's comments regarding Jeremy Bentham
as well as his comments about Voltaire's views; and the three ways to deal with the use of torture in the ticking time bomb situation, as stated by the
Israeli government–appointed commission of the late 1980s. As part of the discussion about the commission's conclusions, include Dershowitz's "fourth
road."
Abstract
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
J. Simpson. In addition to his numerous law review articles and books about criminal and constitutional law, he has written, taught and lectured about
history, philosophy, psychology, literature, mathematics, theology, music, sports– and even delicatessens. [1] In the article Should the Ticking Bomb
Terrorist Be Tortured? from his book titled WhyTerrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, Alan M. Dershowitz
presents measures that aim to prevent terrorism and still uphold US legal, moral and humanitarian values in his article. According to Dershowitz, the
greatest danger facing the world today comes from religiously inspired, state sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop weapons of mass
destruction for use against civilian targets.[2] The ubiquitous and prolific Dershowitz brings very unique perspectives to the table in this article and
weighs in particularly on civil liberties and international justice in a time of terror. He argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a
phenomenon largely of our own making and that we can and must take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Dershowitz has a
great deal to say and teach about the balance we are now struggling to achieve between domestic security and civil liberty. There are critical issues
addressed in his article Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured? America is known for

The Security Has Become A Hot Button Issue
National security has become a hot button issue here in the United States. Rather than representing other nations, opposing forces represent different
ideologies. Enemy personnel may appear as anyone or come from anywhere, even from the United States. These enemies have a potential to acquire
dangerous weapons and cause detrimental amounts of damage to our nation. To save the country from these extreme life threatening circumstances,
where there is clear and specific evidence, torture is ought to be reasonable so as to spare innocent lives. Most people in a civilized nation disagree
with torture. However, in compelling and threatening circumstances it may be allowed. Here is the reason, Many terrorist organizations take advantage
of the situation and make an entryway for an assault. Without the usage of torture, it would take extra time and open doors for another strike later on.
Through the use of torture, the CIA gained useful data by interrogating two terrorist group leaders, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, both
of them gave significant data, after agents used torture. (Gordon n.p.) Zubaydah showed the way to Khalid Mohammed, who was found to be the
mastermind behind 9–11 attacks. (Gordon n.p.) The usage of torture helped gain useful information about terrorist organizations accountable for the
assaults and it opened a way to stop possible assaults driven by Al–Qaida later on. (In –Debate n.p.) Present and former U.S. authorities have claimed
they found key data

Is Torture Ethically Justified?
Introduction
Dick Cheney, the former US vice–president, has claimed that waterboarding torture "helped produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin
Laden". The act of torture to retrieve information from a human being is widely used through the world. The government use of torture during
interrogation is ethically justifiable. The use of torture throughout Earth's history gives evidence supporting torture for interrogation purposes. If you
look at different time periods of the world, you will find that torture has been around for a very long time. The use of torture was handled differently in
different eras but they all give evidence supporting that torture is ethically justifiable. A few important examples that show evidence... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the present torture is used for interrogation purposes all across the globe. Whether torture is used upon leaders of a notorious corrupt organizations
or low–ranking terrorists, it is consistently justified through the fact that many lives are saved. One example is the capture and assassination of the
leader of the al–Qaida terrorist group, Osama bin Laden. Dick Cheney, the former United States vice–president, had stated that the al–Qaida leaders
were captured and interrogated through torture. He continued to state that if it were not for information obtained through the use of torture during their
interrogations, Osama bin Laden would not have been found and assassinated. Cheney noted that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, a leader of the al–Qaida
terrorist group, gave up vital information through torture in regard to the capture of Osama bin Laden. Dick Cheney states that waterboarding torture
"helped produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden". Osama bin Laden had been responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
many other schemes that took the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Bin Laden had to be stopped at any means necessary because as long
as he was still alive there was always the possibility of a large scale terrorist attack. The torture used in the interrogation of the al–Qaida members is
justifiable because it helped to remove a potential threat against many innocent civilians. If it were not for the use of torture we may have never
caught Osama bin Laden to this day and we could have had another 9/11

Why Is Torture Justified
Is torture ever justified? Torture has always been one of the most debatable topics in many countries and law convention. Some say that it is
morally wrong to use torture and it is a fact that many laws of various countries prohibited torture in their prisons. However, is it always wrong? It is
a fact that many countries still use torture in interrogation, but they keep it in secret. If it is morally wrong, then why did the government the people
who should be the example for the citizens to follow do that? In this essay, there are two main arguments to why torture should be legalized which
are: Torture is an effective way to gather information and it is better to regulate the use of torture instead of prohibiting it. Firstly, torture is an
effective information gathering device. It was stated in the book "Torture: When the unthinkable is morally permissible" of Mirko Bagaric and Julie
Clarke that "Human have an intense desire to avoid pain, no matter how short term and most will comply with the demands of a torturer to avoid
pain."( Bagaric, M. & Clarke, J, 2007). Sometimes, even the threat of torture alone would make the criminal cooperate with the interrogator. Professor
Alan Dershowitz the renowned civil libertarian and law professor at Harvard University, has also been a supporter for the legalization of torture.
Professor Dershowitz cited a kidnapping case in Germany in which the son of a banker was kidnapped. The boy was missing for three days and even
though the police caught one of the kidnappers red–handed after seeing him collecting the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It has its use if it can be used in the right hand and in the right ways. Of course, using torture as the first solution is not recommended, but it can be
used as the last resort in information gathering process and in situations require it to prevent harm. In short, torture should be legally, but limitedly used
in laws for its

Persuasive Essay Torture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Michelle Benedict

More from Michelle Benedict (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Persuasive Essay Torture