The right of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the most important rights we Americans have. Regardless if these people are enemies of the Country, they stillhave the same rights under our laws. Freedoms of Americans are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, guarded by our laws, and the treaties we have with other countries. Torture violates all of these guidelines. If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor.
To the Spanish, at the time of the Inquisition, a non-Catholic deserved to be tortured although this was inhumane. A victim's family might want to torture a criminal who has hurt their child, though some think that capital punishment is inhumane. In the end your choice, your decision, torture is it in the eye of the beholder? The idea of torture can be gruesome or flat out emotional. When you constantly criticize
To gain a better understanding you must first know what the Federal Government defines deadly force as : § 10 CFR 1047.7 Use of deadly force. Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists..... The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality.
According to the UN convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment (CAT), “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, be it physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes as obtaining information or a confession from a third person.”(pg. 314) Psychologists Mark Costanzo, Ellen Gerrity, and M. Brinton Lykes argue that the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by psychologists to obtain information from people should be banned. Costanzo et al presented a series of statements: that since torture is a violation of the domestic laws, international law and the violation of human rights; psychologists should not only abstain from the use of torture but also abide by these laws. They went further to say that not only does it violate human rights and international laws but it is also against the professional and ethical code of conduct for psychologist, so for these reasons torture or any other means of interrogation that causes harm to a person should not be considered. Another point made by these authors is that the use of torture has an interrogation technique might not be an “effective means of gathering reliable information (pg.
We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out. Terrorists do not adhere to the custom of respect of an individual. They act as animals, slaughtering without remorse. They do not deserve the rights of our nation or of man. 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.
“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
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
Diagnostic essay. The harm of solitary confinement in prisons cannot be denied. The effects are very damaging - mental disorders, personality disorders, and social disorders, to name a few. Carelessness about how this policy has been implemented raises very severe ethical concerns about humane treatment of prisoners. Prison isolation fits the definition of torture as stated in several international human rights treaties, and this constitutes a violation of human rights law.
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.
Can a single person be held responsible for crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity can be defined extreme and sustained degradation or humiliation of one or more individuals, as a part of a wider and systematic practice condoned by a higher authority, and i think, taking this definition into account that Ultimately, while an individual may be the controlling force and ignite the wave of extreme violence and discrimination, he has to be supported by others in order to build a culture of such extreme hatred; implicating his allies and as such an individual cannot be held wholly responsible for crimes against humanity, although he can be allocated a great portion of the blame. An individual cannot be wholly responsible for such a widespread and sustained practise of atrocities as actions of many are due to being subjected to oppression or under orders of someone of higher authority. In such a case, when the order comes form a higher authority, most often people do not have an option to rebel against their orders. It is usually a "kill or be killed order".