of the European countries decided to ban tortures, only such countries as Africa, Asia, Middle East continued to use such practices. “By 1874, French author Victor Hugo naively declared “torture has ceased to exist.” But torture continued to be used against insurgents in Austria and Italy and against opponents of the Tsarist government in Russia.” (Waldron 2007).
Attitudes towards tortures in the 20th century
The 20th century brought significant changes to the generally accepted social norms, as for example public spectacles with tortures were not considered to be a kind of norm any more. It is not that tortures were absolutely avoided, but they were practiced in some closed basements, like prisons or detention centers for example. Some of …show more content…
“Take the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior al Qaeda operative and the alleged principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and interrogated by U.S. intelligence agents — reportedly using waterboarding — before being transferred to military custody at Guantánamo.” (Parry 2010). He confessed of 31 terrorist operations, planning of the 9/11 attacks in America, beheading of Daniel Pearl, who was a reporter of Wall Street Journal. Later, however, he was named to be a “poster boy” for using legal tactics, the existence of whom could explain the existence of these tactics. At the same time the opponents of these methods were convinced that one individual could not be an organizer of so many terrorist plots and revealed their skepticism in relation to his claims. They stated that taking into consideration the types of tortures, which could be applied to an individual, there is never a guarantee that his confessions are true to life and were not made purely with the aim to stop tortures and remain alive. This argument makes everybody doubt as for effectiveness of tortures. “For instance, a torture victim deprived of his clothes will feel so “ashamed and humiliated and cold,” said retired FBI counterterrorism agent Dan Coleman, “he 'll tell you anything you want to hear to get his clothing back. There 's no value in it.” (Parry 2010). There are other cases, when people, who are so much committed to their religious ideology for example, would prefer to die because of pain or injures and would not agree to talk. In such cases tortures could also be hardly considered to be effective, as they practically lead to a murder of an individual and nothing more. Often tortures are seen as rather effective as preventive means, when they are applied towards dissidents or guerrillas with the
Attitudes towards tortures in the 20th century
The 20th century brought significant changes to the generally accepted social norms, as for example public spectacles with tortures were not considered to be a kind of norm any more. It is not that tortures were absolutely avoided, but they were practiced in some closed basements, like prisons or detention centers for example. Some of …show more content…
“Take the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior al Qaeda operative and the alleged principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and interrogated by U.S. intelligence agents — reportedly using waterboarding — before being transferred to military custody at Guantánamo.” (Parry 2010). He confessed of 31 terrorist operations, planning of the 9/11 attacks in America, beheading of Daniel Pearl, who was a reporter of Wall Street Journal. Later, however, he was named to be a “poster boy” for using legal tactics, the existence of whom could explain the existence of these tactics. At the same time the opponents of these methods were convinced that one individual could not be an organizer of so many terrorist plots and revealed their skepticism in relation to his claims. They stated that taking into consideration the types of tortures, which could be applied to an individual, there is never a guarantee that his confessions are true to life and were not made purely with the aim to stop tortures and remain alive. This argument makes everybody doubt as for effectiveness of tortures. “For instance, a torture victim deprived of his clothes will feel so “ashamed and humiliated and cold,” said retired FBI counterterrorism agent Dan Coleman, “he 'll tell you anything you want to hear to get his clothing back. There 's no value in it.” (Parry 2010). There are other cases, when people, who are so much committed to their religious ideology for example, would prefer to die because of pain or injures and would not agree to talk. In such cases tortures could also be hardly considered to be effective, as they practically lead to a murder of an individual and nothing more. Often tortures are seen as rather effective as preventive means, when they are applied towards dissidents or guerrillas with the