Human Torture Should Not be Continued Essay

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

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

Torture 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

Many of those detained in the military entrenched prisons inside Iraq, are subject to torture by one of many interrogators that are allowed to use any method necessary to gain intelligence on any of these two primary goals. The collection of the intelligence, was then used in many strikes against those who stood against the United States against the overall goal of creating a free Iraq.

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

Torture has 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authorities argue that a difference exists between torture and inhumane treatment, especially going by the motives behind use of torture, which is not always the case (Bakalar, 2007). However, a critical analysis of the two shows slight differences since torture can be argued to be inhumane treatment in different circumstances. In most cases, torture is perceived to be inhumane when it leads to long-term mental problems among the victims. However, subjection to torture even in the short term has serious consequences such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which is an equally justification of its qualification as part of inhumane treatment. Additionally, the constitution highlights some of the basic rights that ought to be respected although

In order to fully comprehend if the United States use of “enhanced interrogation methods” are torture one must first have an understanding as to what torture is as defined by international law. The United Nations, an international policing force, defines torture as “(United Nations, 1984) 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”. The most important aspect to take from the definition is the use of “severe” when describing physical and mental pain or suffering. This use of wording ensures nations a way to extract information from suspected enemies using less favorable techniques while still maintaining international law. The topics discussed will be focusing on techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the United States Armed Forces, all three of which have preferred techniques when in interrogation. Each technique will be dissected from a position both for and against

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