So, the information received is not always reliable. Torture is the intrusion of rights. In special cases torture might be necessary. However, “sexual exploitation & nude mortification” is immoral. We should never bend that low to get an answer.
“At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” (Applebaum). This is the story being used for validating of torture. There is no proof that this story has any truth.
Like genocide, terrorism has been used in warfare since warfare was first instituted. As the name states it is used to create a state of terror in the society that it is used against. This tactic is not only used against military targets, but also against civilian targets, in order to pressure the public against any retribution towards the group. Terrorism is very efficient and cost effective, as has been seen in recent years. As with genocide, terrorism does not create any moral dilemma to the society that implements it, yet the one that it is being used against is of the opinion that it is one of the worst things that can be used.
The argument for the Justification of torture on terrorists is completely justifiable and the only course of action in ascertaining vital information for the nation’s defense. To argue against justification is weakness itself. The world has monsters lurking in its dark corners. To
One is the ’ticking time bomb’ scenario. A suspected terrorist is in custody and may have the knowledge of how to stop this bomb from blowing and killing many people. This scenario has a very limited amount of time to retrieve the information. In this case, the interrogator could torture before given authorization but would have to answer for his actions to his superiors within 24 to 48 hours. The second situation for the legitimacy of torture would be for the ‘slower fuse’ terrorist who may have information regarding future life threating activities.
“The Case for Torture”, by Michael Levin and “Torture’s Terrible Toll”, by John McCain are two pieces of writing that argue the pros and cons of using torture as a means to receive information from terrorists. Although the use of torture to secure information is viewed differently by each author, the moral and human rights of every individual is agreed upon by both Levin and McCain. While Levin views torture as necessary in extreme life threatening circumstances, McCain views it as unconstitutional and believes that it is inhumane and goes against individual human rights. In the world today, where terrorist threats seem to be a normal occurrence, there is no doubt that the country must be ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to keep
Horton accuses the governing body of frequently exploiting its power in having the Justice Department instigate repression among voters. Furthermore, the lawyers who were inspecting the unlawful actions of these political criminals were quietly discharged of their duty and the incriminating evidence was concealed. The Bush administration was also spying regularly on religious and political groups in the country, while it covertly introduced a tremendously illegal surveillance program that caused conflict among senior officials in the Justice Department. Horton attributes this illicit monitoring device as the reason behind the “War on Terror” because it misleadingly revealed all of intelligence’s information on Iraq to both
Understanding the moral concept of torture being wrong but in this case the use of torture used to terrorist attacks on innocent people. A fine line when discussing what is right and wrong however executed in the proper way should be accepted. When identifying torture by no means should it be physical pain that’s involved. Mental torture has been used and considered illegal to obtain information, but most of the time used without a second glance. If McCain even agrees with the simple fact how Al Qaeda expresses the word “sociopath” in relation to the meaning of terrorists acts, it applies to them (Page698).
O’Brien writes “If you don’t care for obscenity, you don’t care for the truth” (347). The gore, the vulgarity, and the obscenity are all relevant in order to convey the emotions and state of mind of the people who were involved. The author cannot
Al-Qaeda would eventually use tactics used by the IRA decades before. Both organizations have political and religious motives and use bombings and killings to spread fear of their group, including purposely targeting civilians within their own borders, as well as different sects of the same base religion. Where Al-Qaeda has orchestrated attacks all over the globe, the IRA has kept its target as the British and non-supporting Irish parties. Both of these groups have been in decline in recent years, Al-Qaeda due to immense pressure from global anti-terrorism, the IRA from a shift in using terrorism as a tool and lack of