Torture Debate Analysis

Torture is now easier to justify in the context of the war on terror. Many opinions may arise when looking at whether or not we should torture potential terrorists and since there is not an actual strategy to proceed along when looking at it, the question still remains unanswered. The debate began after the incident in 9/11 had occurred and the government implemented several anti terrorism measures where justification was placed under the veil of Unitarianism. In the article “The torture debate” by Phillip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle they provide readers with complementary views on whether or not legalized systems of torture would be worth having. The authors also emphasize the issues that could result from having a torture of system since it could come with many implications. After reading this article, I believe that the author had provided enough evidence on whether or not torture would be beneficial or if it would lead to a slippery slope tragedy that would go against what they were trying to accomplish. In essence, I believe that having a torture system would only have a negative outcome and Liberal democracies should refrain from using such systems since preventing massive global issues could be more important than killing potential terrorists to protect innocent residents. Throughout the text presented the main idea …show more content…
When the author talks about the pilot shooting down a hijacked plane versus non-lethal torture, it makes it difficult for readers to differentiate between what is considered lethal or not. When the government makes such changes, individuals wait and see if the change has made a positive or negative impact on the country yet with torture there is no accurate evidence to prove whether or not it is