Should Torture Be Authorized Essay
Legalizing Torture
Torture is always brought into discussion when a country enters into a war or a civil dispute. It is often argued whether it is right or wrong to use torture to obtain information. The “ticking bomb” theory is also refuted on the basis that these scenarios are rarely as dire as they seem, and usually even if torture was used, the information would most likely be obtained too late to avoid the event.
In light of the recent events such as the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq, torture has become a topic of close consideration. Torture is sometimes used when a person who is believed to have information about a possible harmful event or information about an illegal organization, is then inflicted with pain by members of the opposing side with a series of different physical and mental distresses, in hope of forcing the person to give over desired information. Torture has often been used during times of war and political unrest, and in situations where the information could protect the society from danger. I believe that torture is never an …show more content…
acceptable way to gather information, and rarely does it produce valid information in a crisis. I feel that if the U.S. Justice Department is allowed to authorize or issue “torture warrants,” torture would become less stigmatized and people would be more likely to support the use of torture. I also believe that since the U.S. agreed with the Geneva Conventions, we cannot lesson their power by expecting other countries to follow them when we ignore them. I also believe the argument of “the ticking bomb” is fallacious and irrelevant because rarely do these dire situations occur.
Authorization is often discussed when torture is debated.
Authorization would mean that torture would be made legal but could only be used after a “torture warrant” was granted by a judge. In Heymann’s essay “Torture Should Not Be Authorize” he states, “Punches may be thrown, but anything we think of as ‘torture’ is considered an inexcusable practice. That revulsion will disappear if we make torture acceptable and legal whenever a judge accepts the judgment of intelligence officers…”. I agree with Heymann’s statement: if we begin authorizing torture we are accepting if as a justifiable way of gathering information and agreeing that in that type of situation if is acceptable to take away the rights of the person being tortured. Heymann also makes another good point in his essay, explaining that if we do agree to start authorizing torture, then we are showing other countries that it is
acceptable to set up their own systems of authorizing torture (p 762). Then we must also consider that our decision to authorize torture in our country has put our own soldiers and other Americans in danger of other countries reciprocating and authorizing torture on them.
This brings me to my next point about the Geneva Conventions on the topic of torture. The Geneva Conventions were drafted to create a code of conduct for nations at war and their soldiers. Those who signed the Conventions agreed to how all countries should handle prisoners during times of war and came to a consensus not to use torture. However, the U.S. entered two wars between 2001 and 2003, one against “terror” and one in Iraq, and the Geneva Conventions were ignored. Not only did the U.S. set up a prison in Cuba for “enemy noncombatants,” people who the U.S. says have no legal status under the Conventions; recent information also suggests that the U.S. has authorized torture and that many prisoners in Iraq have been tortured for information. It appears that some United States soldiers have used torture to vent their anger toward Iraqis. If the U.S. has no regard for the Conventions, other countries may feel that there is no need for them to abide by them either. This idea is directly echoed in the USA Today article about the McCain anti-torture amendment, “Clueless About Torture.”
Passing the McCain amendment amounts to a confirmation that the United States, including its intelligence operatives, will abide by the International Convention Against Torture. That shouldn’t be a problem: the United Stated signed the treaty. Rejecting the amendment would send the appalling message to the world that its sole superpower reserves the right to torture for itself (p 2).
If at a time of peace we thought it was a good idea to ban torture so that other countries also did not have that right, then it is unacceptable for us in a time of war to change our mind because we think we should have the right to use it. The U.S. needs to stand by its word and not give others around the world the impression that it believes it is above the law.
Many people argue that torture is needed in case a “ticking bomb” scenario should arise. This is a scenario when many people could be killed by a threatened action if information on what is about to happen is not collected quickly. This means that torture would be used on those who hold the information in hopes that the people being tortured will give over accurate information, thus preventing the supposed disaster. However, I agree with Iacopino that “It Should Not Be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information.” He writes that, “Torture does not make any one person or society safer or more secure. States that torture undermines their authority and legitimacy” p. 759). The scandal of the torture that happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib makes this statement even clearer, as many countries have now retracted support of the U.S. In addition, many countries that originally disagreed with the U.S. attacking Iraq now use Abu Ghraib as more evidence against the U.S. In an article that appeared in Newsweek, “Pssst… Nobody Loves a Torturer,” Zakaria explains how a significant portion of Iraqis were supportive of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but after the Abu Ghraib atrocities were revealed, that support dwindled from 63 percent to nine percent. This shows that Iacopino was correct in his statement, and many other countries have lost respect for the U.S. The “ticking bomb” scenario is farfetched and produces the same result as the Iacopino projected. There is no guarantee that even if torture were used, that the information would be gathered in time or be accurate enough to prevent the incident. “Ticking bomb” scenarios are usually just that – invented scenarios of events that never happen but that torture advocates think may convince others that they need the option to torture. Even if one of these events actually happened, torture would still be wrong, and it is certainly wrong to leave loopholes open which would allow for torture in any other situations.
Trying to find a middle ground on torture is difficult because I don’t think anyone truly wants torture to happen to anyone; however, it is hard to decide when or even if torture should ever be used. The only middle ground I can see would be with the use of “torture warrants,” as dangerous as this legalization would be. If we did use “torture warrants” in a systemic, open way, that could lead to torture being used only with proper supervision and training. These would only be used in dire situations in which the information is needed immediately, and even then it would be an absolute last resort. “Torture warrants” would also make every torture well documented, so that it would hold all those people responsible if torture were used improperly. Even though this would be a middle ground, and I would like to see laws that clearly defined and confined torture, I would prefer it if there were also stricter laws against those who administer torture illegally.
When a person is being tortured, that person will say anything to make the torture stop. There is no way for interrogators and torturers to know whether the information given is accurate.
Torture needs to be banned, and steps need to be taken to stop this brutality. Currently an anti-torture bill has passed the U.S. Senate; however, there is opposition to it from friends of the Bush Administration. If this bill does not pass, it will send the wrong message to other countries, and the after effects could be other nations torturing our soldiers!
References
Clueless about torture). USA Today. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: Academic Scarch Premiere Database.
Heymann, P.B.Torture should not be authorized. In S. Barnet and H. Bedau (Ed.), Current issues and enduring questions: A guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (pp. 761-62). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Iacopino, V. It should not be permissible to torture suspected terrorists to gather information. In S. Barnet and H. Bedau (Ed.), Current issues and enduring questions: A guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (pp. 759-60). Boston: Bedfort/St. Martin’s.
Zakaria, F. Pssst… nobody loves a torturer. Newsweek, 2013. From EBSCOhost: Master FILE Premier Database.
"VCC English." TortureAPApositionPaper. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013.
Torture is always brought into discussion when a country enters into a war or a civil dispute. It is often argued whether it is right or wrong to use torture to obtain information. The “ticking bomb” theory is also refuted on the basis that these scenarios are rarely as dire as they seem, and usually even if torture was used, the information would most likely be obtained too late to avoid the event.
In light of the recent events such as the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq, torture has become a topic of close consideration. Torture is sometimes used when a person who is believed to have information about a possible harmful event or information about an illegal organization, is then inflicted with pain by members of the opposing side with a series of different physical and mental distresses, in hope of forcing the person to give over desired information. Torture has often been used during times of war and political unrest, and in situations where the information could protect the society from danger. I believe that torture is never an …show more content…
acceptable way to gather information, and rarely does it produce valid information in a crisis. I feel that if the U.S. Justice Department is allowed to authorize or issue “torture warrants,” torture would become less stigmatized and people would be more likely to support the use of torture. I also believe that since the U.S. agreed with the Geneva Conventions, we cannot lesson their power by expecting other countries to follow them when we ignore them. I also believe the argument of “the ticking bomb” is fallacious and irrelevant because rarely do these dire situations occur.
Authorization is often discussed when torture is debated.
Authorization would mean that torture would be made legal but could only be used after a “torture warrant” was granted by a judge. In Heymann’s essay “Torture Should Not Be Authorize” he states, “Punches may be thrown, but anything we think of as ‘torture’ is considered an inexcusable practice. That revulsion will disappear if we make torture acceptable and legal whenever a judge accepts the judgment of intelligence officers…”. I agree with Heymann’s statement: if we begin authorizing torture we are accepting if as a justifiable way of gathering information and agreeing that in that type of situation if is acceptable to take away the rights of the person being tortured. Heymann also makes another good point in his essay, explaining that if we do agree to start authorizing torture, then we are showing other countries that it is
acceptable to set up their own systems of authorizing torture (p 762). Then we must also consider that our decision to authorize torture in our country has put our own soldiers and other Americans in danger of other countries reciprocating and authorizing torture on them.
This brings me to my next point about the Geneva Conventions on the topic of torture. The Geneva Conventions were drafted to create a code of conduct for nations at war and their soldiers. Those who signed the Conventions agreed to how all countries should handle prisoners during times of war and came to a consensus not to use torture. However, the U.S. entered two wars between 2001 and 2003, one against “terror” and one in Iraq, and the Geneva Conventions were ignored. Not only did the U.S. set up a prison in Cuba for “enemy noncombatants,” people who the U.S. says have no legal status under the Conventions; recent information also suggests that the U.S. has authorized torture and that many prisoners in Iraq have been tortured for information. It appears that some United States soldiers have used torture to vent their anger toward Iraqis. If the U.S. has no regard for the Conventions, other countries may feel that there is no need for them to abide by them either. This idea is directly echoed in the USA Today article about the McCain anti-torture amendment, “Clueless About Torture.”
Passing the McCain amendment amounts to a confirmation that the United States, including its intelligence operatives, will abide by the International Convention Against Torture. That shouldn’t be a problem: the United Stated signed the treaty. Rejecting the amendment would send the appalling message to the world that its sole superpower reserves the right to torture for itself (p 2).
If at a time of peace we thought it was a good idea to ban torture so that other countries also did not have that right, then it is unacceptable for us in a time of war to change our mind because we think we should have the right to use it. The U.S. needs to stand by its word and not give others around the world the impression that it believes it is above the law.
Many people argue that torture is needed in case a “ticking bomb” scenario should arise. This is a scenario when many people could be killed by a threatened action if information on what is about to happen is not collected quickly. This means that torture would be used on those who hold the information in hopes that the people being tortured will give over accurate information, thus preventing the supposed disaster. However, I agree with Iacopino that “It Should Not Be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information.” He writes that, “Torture does not make any one person or society safer or more secure. States that torture undermines their authority and legitimacy” p. 759). The scandal of the torture that happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib makes this statement even clearer, as many countries have now retracted support of the U.S. In addition, many countries that originally disagreed with the U.S. attacking Iraq now use Abu Ghraib as more evidence against the U.S. In an article that appeared in Newsweek, “Pssst… Nobody Loves a Torturer,” Zakaria explains how a significant portion of Iraqis were supportive of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but after the Abu Ghraib atrocities were revealed, that support dwindled from 63 percent to nine percent. This shows that Iacopino was correct in his statement, and many other countries have lost respect for the U.S. The “ticking bomb” scenario is farfetched and produces the same result as the Iacopino projected. There is no guarantee that even if torture were used, that the information would be gathered in time or be accurate enough to prevent the incident. “Ticking bomb” scenarios are usually just that – invented scenarios of events that never happen but that torture advocates think may convince others that they need the option to torture. Even if one of these events actually happened, torture would still be wrong, and it is certainly wrong to leave loopholes open which would allow for torture in any other situations.
Trying to find a middle ground on torture is difficult because I don’t think anyone truly wants torture to happen to anyone; however, it is hard to decide when or even if torture should ever be used. The only middle ground I can see would be with the use of “torture warrants,” as dangerous as this legalization would be. If we did use “torture warrants” in a systemic, open way, that could lead to torture being used only with proper supervision and training. These would only be used in dire situations in which the information is needed immediately, and even then it would be an absolute last resort. “Torture warrants” would also make every torture well documented, so that it would hold all those people responsible if torture were used improperly. Even though this would be a middle ground, and I would like to see laws that clearly defined and confined torture, I would prefer it if there were also stricter laws against those who administer torture illegally.
When a person is being tortured, that person will say anything to make the torture stop. There is no way for interrogators and torturers to know whether the information given is accurate.
Torture needs to be banned, and steps need to be taken to stop this brutality. Currently an anti-torture bill has passed the U.S. Senate; however, there is opposition to it from friends of the Bush Administration. If this bill does not pass, it will send the wrong message to other countries, and the after effects could be other nations torturing our soldiers!
References
Clueless about torture). USA Today. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: Academic Scarch Premiere Database.
Heymann, P.B.Torture should not be authorized. In S. Barnet and H. Bedau (Ed.), Current issues and enduring questions: A guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (pp. 761-62). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Iacopino, V. It should not be permissible to torture suspected terrorists to gather information. In S. Barnet and H. Bedau (Ed.), Current issues and enduring questions: A guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (pp. 759-60). Boston: Bedfort/St. Martin’s.
Zakaria, F. Pssst… nobody loves a torturer. Newsweek, 2013. From EBSCOhost: Master FILE Premier Database.
"VCC English." TortureAPApositionPaper. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013.