In his article “A Case for Torture,” Michael Levin creates a faulty argument for torture by disregarding the issue of the legality of torture. Levin’s article is in response to the publication of a shocking report by the Senate’s Intelligence Committee. The extensive report reveals the details of torture on suspected terrorists conducted by officials of the Central Intelligence Committee (CIA) and members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In his article, Levin attempts to defend the individuals and agencies through the use of pathos and other such rhetoric devices, but he has failed to discuss the legality of the act nor did he discuss the hypocritical nature of the scandal.
For millennia before the United States of America was …show more content…
Through protecting universal human rights, the document protects people from the savageness of torture. One could scour the endless legal documents that pertain to the United States’ Constitution, and he would find endless proof that the act of torture is indeed unconstitutional. While there is no statute explicitly stating that torture is unconstitutional, there is no possible doubt that the use of torture goes against the ideology America was founded upon. With no specific statute addressing the topic of torture, many would assume that the founding fathers had not thought it worthy to include in the Constitution. Yet, one would only need to scan the Bill of Rights to find the founding fathers did indeed address torture via subtle wording. The first implication of torture occurs in the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure. The act of torture is an unreasonable search and seizure. Those who commit torture are not impartial judges; they have decided their victim is guilty before the torture begins. Through the act of torture, investigators search for what they believe is true. The torturers continue to mutilate their victims until they hear him utter a confession of guilt, no matter if the victim was truly guilty or not. Torture forces its victims to incriminate themselves, and denies the right to a fair trial. However, the Fifth Amendment …show more content…
The international community witness as the American government allows the CIA to commit an international crime. It should come as no shock that other nations view the leniency of the American government as an act of hypocrisy. The vehement nation that has opposed the use of torture due to its cruel nature now authorizes torture because it is of use. By disregarding the treaties, the United States not only insults the international community and makes a mockery of the international legal system, the nation loses the respect of allies and esteem of developing nations.
In his article “A Case for Torture,” Michael Levin makes the erroneous claim that torture is permissible because he does not address the countless legal issues connected to the controversy. Instead of choosing to include verifiable facts that disprove the legitimacy of torture, Levin manipulates his readers’ emotions through the use of pathos, the fabrication of improbable tragedies, and unsourced studies. Levin’s “A Case for Torture” is purposely flawed in hopes of convincing his audience to join him in advocating for
For millennia before the United States of America was …show more content…
Through protecting universal human rights, the document protects people from the savageness of torture. One could scour the endless legal documents that pertain to the United States’ Constitution, and he would find endless proof that the act of torture is indeed unconstitutional. While there is no statute explicitly stating that torture is unconstitutional, there is no possible doubt that the use of torture goes against the ideology America was founded upon. With no specific statute addressing the topic of torture, many would assume that the founding fathers had not thought it worthy to include in the Constitution. Yet, one would only need to scan the Bill of Rights to find the founding fathers did indeed address torture via subtle wording. The first implication of torture occurs in the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure. The act of torture is an unreasonable search and seizure. Those who commit torture are not impartial judges; they have decided their victim is guilty before the torture begins. Through the act of torture, investigators search for what they believe is true. The torturers continue to mutilate their victims until they hear him utter a confession of guilt, no matter if the victim was truly guilty or not. Torture forces its victims to incriminate themselves, and denies the right to a fair trial. However, the Fifth Amendment …show more content…
The international community witness as the American government allows the CIA to commit an international crime. It should come as no shock that other nations view the leniency of the American government as an act of hypocrisy. The vehement nation that has opposed the use of torture due to its cruel nature now authorizes torture because it is of use. By disregarding the treaties, the United States not only insults the international community and makes a mockery of the international legal system, the nation loses the respect of allies and esteem of developing nations.
In his article “A Case for Torture,” Michael Levin makes the erroneous claim that torture is permissible because he does not address the countless legal issues connected to the controversy. Instead of choosing to include verifiable facts that disprove the legitimacy of torture, Levin manipulates his readers’ emotions through the use of pathos, the fabrication of improbable tragedies, and unsourced studies. Levin’s “A Case for Torture” is purposely flawed in hopes of convincing his audience to join him in advocating for