Human rights are the recognition of the equal worth of every human being. These rights preserve the inherent dignity every person is entitled. Human rights cannot be taken, or destroyed by others or oneself. Everyone has equal dignity at all stages of life. They are note susceptible to the notion of change, are transcendentalist, and immune to the forces of degrogration. After the horrors of World War II, the nations of the world came together to preserve these humans rights in writing, through The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948). This document laid the foundation for justifying human rights, which in theory should not need justification. The right to life, liberty, security of a person, and to not to be subject to torture
…show more content…
This leads to two arguments in favor of torture by regulating and legalizing its practice, (1) legalization and regulation of torture will help prevent the most extreme forms of torture, and (2) the “institutionalization of torture, via torture warrants,” might not alleviate torture, but instead deviate the legal repercussions of torture away from the countries (McKinnon 167). However, if you endorse and legitimize a distinction between the treatment of terrorists and the treatment of citizens, the police and intelligence forces view terrorists as a less than other humans. In the context of human rights this is not acceptable. Human rights are degrational. Humans cannot be classified based on their actions. The legalization of any form of torture will desensitize people to the inhumane treatment people are subjected, despite if they deserve it or not. What happens when the tables are turned, when a country or the winning team is no longer the one writing history? Instead of protecting their citizens, countries will put them in greater danger of torture by other …show more content…
In corporal punishment, we know someone is guilty. They are being punished for a crime. This method might not be what we need use for terrorist. Interrogation on the other hand has elements of justification for punishing a terrorist and it’s goal is to obtain any relevant and useful information by questioning the detainee. There is set starting and stopping points. Torture can carry on indefinitely, even to the point of death. Intergotation is a useful and humane way of obtaining information that we need. Of course this route may or may not sway a terrorist into giving up the information necessary, but there are other methods to obtaining information and preventing harm to the general public. Whether that be using the NSA or FBI to monitor certain individuals that may have the information we need. Of course these are not ideal, but are better options than torture.
Torture is never justified. All humans have universal human rights that cannot be infringed upon, no matter their crime. It is not up to countries to torture a terrorist--a fellow human--to the point
This leads to two arguments in favor of torture by regulating and legalizing its practice, (1) legalization and regulation of torture will help prevent the most extreme forms of torture, and (2) the “institutionalization of torture, via torture warrants,” might not alleviate torture, but instead deviate the legal repercussions of torture away from the countries (McKinnon 167). However, if you endorse and legitimize a distinction between the treatment of terrorists and the treatment of citizens, the police and intelligence forces view terrorists as a less than other humans. In the context of human rights this is not acceptable. Human rights are degrational. Humans cannot be classified based on their actions. The legalization of any form of torture will desensitize people to the inhumane treatment people are subjected, despite if they deserve it or not. What happens when the tables are turned, when a country or the winning team is no longer the one writing history? Instead of protecting their citizens, countries will put them in greater danger of torture by other …show more content…
In corporal punishment, we know someone is guilty. They are being punished for a crime. This method might not be what we need use for terrorist. Interrogation on the other hand has elements of justification for punishing a terrorist and it’s goal is to obtain any relevant and useful information by questioning the detainee. There is set starting and stopping points. Torture can carry on indefinitely, even to the point of death. Intergotation is a useful and humane way of obtaining information that we need. Of course this route may or may not sway a terrorist into giving up the information necessary, but there are other methods to obtaining information and preventing harm to the general public. Whether that be using the NSA or FBI to monitor certain individuals that may have the information we need. Of course these are not ideal, but are better options than torture.
Torture is never justified. All humans have universal human rights that cannot be infringed upon, no matter their crime. It is not up to countries to torture a terrorist--a fellow human--to the point