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).
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.
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled. Despite the unethical and questionable methods of torturous counterinsurgency committed in the past, there are still occasions when torture could be necessary in order to achieve a specific goal. In this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in extreme emergencies, and only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. However, I will also argue that despite its moral permissibility, torture should not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized. In order to fully understand why torture may be morally justifiable we must first have a firm understanding of what torture is, and how it may also be morally impermissible.
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
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.
Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war. While guerilla warfare and terrorism share similarities with respect to the foreseeable killing of noncombatants, terrorism is never justified firstly because of the random nature of its targets. Second, the fact that terrorism is a useful tactic for avoiding engagement with an enemy’s military makes it far more dangerous for civilians than guerilla warfare. Finally, terrorism’s lack of moral limitations and restrictions on killing make it rather difficult for any compromise or reconciliation to be possible. While the element of surprise is one of the key tactics employed in both guerilla warfare and terrorism, it is the latter’s employment of this tactic that Walzer takes issue with.
For centuries this coercive technique has been used as an important tool in power affairs however there is no doubt that inflicting injury, be it physical or emotional, on an individual with the sole purpose of extracting certain information is wrong, unethical and negates the international humanitarian laws and policies which only promote peace. The UN convention against such acts condemns torture even in grave situations such as war or while fighting terrorism. As the Foreign website of UK states, being a major signatory to UN Convention against Torture, "Torture is one
Politics, Religion and Media are true forms of deception. Deception is differed from individual to individual, for some people deception has different theories and different measures, like in a relationship when one partner is cheating on other for one person it might prove to be a deception but for other one this is just might not wrong. Well we face so many emotional deceptions during our lifetime, which has no material value and cannot be framed as artful deceptive in nature. Deception has different measure and different levels based on individual. The deception or forge or fraud stories which we know are meant to be known for us, the people who did it they want us to know about their artful intelligence worldwide.
From the wars to our today’s life, torture is used as a mean of self-defense or other-defenses to against unlawful actions. There are many different views regarding whether torture can be justified. In my opinion, torture cannot be justified during wars amongst the army but it can be justified in today’s life if someone makes imminent threat towards one’s life. First of all, there is no law or rule to be working during wars. In spite of the fact that every soldier is fighting for their survival and tortures the enemies for gaining important information in order to save someone’s life, this threat is applied bidirectional.
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. Certainly if millions of lives are at stake, the prisoner in question could be and would be tortured. It would not matter whether or not the practice of torture is illegal, because those doing the torturing would almost certainly be either pardoned or acquitted by jury nullification. When our criminal justice system makes allowances even for justifiable homicide, it is naive to believe that laws against torture would have any significance in a true "ticking bomb" scenario. In every war, information is a weapon.