Consequently, we might even have more time to consume for analyzing what and where may the terrorists’ attacks be. However, if we wasted our time on finding the correct prisoners and torture them, we are not only having a risk of killing them, but a risk of receiving lies, for they might tell lies to stop torturers from continue torturing them, or nothing at all as well. Another case that would be extremely likely to happen is that criminals who are tortured begin to hate the world much severer. As a result, they would become determined that they would say nothing about their plans. Furthermore, they would be viewed as potential risks when they are out from the jail since the more they hate the world, the higher the potential of constructing evil attacks by them would be.
Perspectives on Torture and the War on Terrorism Perspectives on Torture and the War on Terrorism Yoo defined torture as an act committed upon a person with specific intensions to cause him/her severe mental or physical pain or suffering by another person acting under the color of law, and has his custody or physical control. This pain must not be as a result of lawful sanctions. This type of definition that Yoo uses is “threatening” and is unlawful. President Obama however, would oppose the use of torture. On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required.
It is inhumane and is against human rights. First of all, War is tool used to destroy the population numbers. Just recently there has been an article about an afghan massacre which killed 17 afghan civilians, the TV news also showed the deep mourning and sadness felt by the village. Destroying and massacring small villages just so the government can escape economic depressions and to put fear into the citizens is what modern wars are about. Fleeing refugees, murder from both the government and the enemy have resulted in such a devastated state of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban scares innocent people with death by military equipment.
The case scenario on Abu Ghraib prison scandal has joined accountability and ethics together .The acts of torture and humiliation have undermined the military’s reputation and diminished the standing of the U.S. around the world which is unethical to the code of conduct of US intelligence. The spectacular nature of the scandal demands an examination of how ethical considerations play out in an accountability framework. Accountability for moral lapses and unethical behaviors is qualitatively different than it is for political or technical missteps. When you look at the definition of ethic as the standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professional that explains that the Abu Ghraib scandal is not ethically defensible. Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action.There were confusing and conflicting demands made upon those responsible for the operations of the prison, but the way they reacted to those demands was wrong and immoral.
The use of torture as a deterrent is a technique commonly used in counterinsurgency. It is intended to intimidate and frighten adversaries into compliance. The persons being tortured need not have any particular information; their value is to serve as an example to others and promote fear. Political uprisings are often violent, and torture of a few rebels to prevent further outbreaks of bloodshed at first seems like a worthwhile trade. Yet a recent study on combating insurgency shows that "...torture is ineffective for reducing killings perpetrated by insurgents both because it fails to reduce insurgent capacities for violence and because it can increase the incentives for insurgents to commit future killings" (Sullivan 402).
The Use of Torture Can Never Be Justified As a preliminary working definition sufficient for my purposes here, I agree with Michael Davis who describes torture as “the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, (Michael, Davis, 2005). Thus, a person might have been tortured, even if in fact their will has not been broken; the purpose of the practice of torture is to break the victim’s will, but this purpose does not have to be realized for a process to be an instance of torture. Is The Use of Torture Ever Justified? The question tends to provoke a "yes" or "no" answer. The use of torture is always based on the “TICKING bomb theory.” This theory describes a fictional scenario in which a massive weapon is set to go off, a prisoner in custody is known to have information on the attack that he refuses to give, and U.S. forces are faced with the question of whether to torture the prisoner or to allow untold millions to die.
Julie Pense English 101, sec DE 08/25/14 Rough draft V’s Prolixity In reading “V for Vendetta “by Alan Moore, I have come to an understanding that some of society see V as a terrorist and not for the good but in my opinion he is very mad and angry at society, the way it’s going with all the wrong and how the government is are treating its people. Which brings me to ask the question is “V” a terrorist or an anti- super hero to the people? The novel “V for Vendetta” has many different arguable points. One of “V” points would be, freedom or dictatorship. "V" has many complex and interesting sides to his character or shall we say archetype.
Is Torture Morally Justifiable? Torture has always been debated regarding its ethical and moral justification. The largest and still on going debate is whether or not torture is effective enough to disregard international and domestic laws such as the Geneva Conventions. In the past, and especially during wartime, atrocities have been committed in ill regard to these laws. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled.
Why Drugs Are Bad Report 1.The reason it is bad to do drugs is because it is against the law and if you can break the law you can be put in jail. Drugs are also bad because they can mess up your life by ruining your chance to get a job because you won't be able to pass a drug test, and no one wants to hire someone who does drugs. Another reason doing drugs is bad is that when a person is intoxicated, they can't think straight so they tend to do stupid things and act really dumb. 2.Doing drugs is a very bad thing for many reasons but one of the, if not the most serious reasons is that drugs kill. Drugs can kill in so many ways and the biggest reason is overdosing.
The death penalty is wrong because states do not comply with the standards that have been set that keep the death penalty from being cruel and unusual. Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional via the eighth amendment and states experimentation with secret new drugs has caused execution to become torturous. The second reason why the death penalty needs to be abolished is that capital punishment is a very large expenditure and wastes resources. Capital punishment is very expensive in