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.
If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor. Torture to an enemy of the United States by the military or by any of the other Agencies is wrong and against our own laws and treaties. Our own military’s lawyers have even expressed concern over the use of torture of prisoners. The Judge Advocacy General’s Corps
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.
“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
Recent activity in the Bush administration has led to widespread criticism on how the government perceives torture. Torture is a word that carries negative connotation in nearly every part of its usage. Alan Dershowitz states in his article, “Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?” that if the government is going to practice such methods of interrogation, they should not hide it from the public, but rather make it legal in a way that allows for the protection of our nation. His stance on the subject is made clear by his introduction of various solutions to the problem and tries to convince his audience of their power. He focuses on interpretations of the constitution and assumes that torture will happen regardless of what the government says.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
Justification for “The Case for Torture” Torture is unacceptable in every society and most will agree, but is it inexcusable? Depending on how you look at it, there may be situations in which it could possibly be a necessary evil. With the amount of lives lost on a daily basis due to the crimes of passion, of religion, and in today’s world, those of war. Could some of these lives have been saved if the information had been extracted in time? Maybe.
He explains that the death penalty is just an act of torture and is too horrible to be used by our civilized society, stating that it is “torture until death” (220). He goes on to argue that the death penalty is unjust in its practice because it is applied in arbitrary and also in discriminatory ways. Quoting, “Remain grants that the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, but he thinks that justice does not require the death penalty for murderers” (221). He goes on to say that life imprisonment can be an alternative decision that stratifies the requirements of the justice
The death penalty is a very sensitive subject and with it comes different pros and cons. The argument most often discussed in support of capital punishment is that the threat of executions deters capital crimes more effectively than imprisonment. This claim is plausible, but the facts do not support it. The death penalty fails as a deterrent for several reasons. One reason is that any punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed.
There were several consequences that developed due to the rise of religious fundamentalism that proved to be detrimental on both the regional and global scale. On the regional scale, the rise of religious fundamentalists that were known for their violent nature created political instability and the rise of authoritarian regimes in response as extremists threatened the secular foundations of independent states. Making matters worse, the extremist stance and violent methods that the religious fundamentalists adopted translated into the constant disruptions of peace processes which led to the protraction of regional conflicts. While not all religious fundamentalists had a global outreach, those groups that did have the international network played a critical role in the rise of global terrorism and the undermining of international law due to their illegal and brutal actions. Evidently, the impacts of the rise of religious fundamentalism was undeniably significant and detrimental on both a regional and global level.