The main issue is not liberty, but it is a contributing factor in the United States. United States Senator Mark Udall from Colorado said it the shortest possible way "The balance between freedom and security is a delicate one". The balance over time has fallen in favor of liberty giving the terrorist the freedom to make easy attacks on the United States. The liberty they have after they come to America give them ample opportunity to attack any location. In addition, after little processing they can come to America under the guise that their after the liberties we have then abusing them to terrorize the United States.…
Introducing the author Daniel J. Hill, he made good points on views of torture on how it could be permissible and not permissible. He introduced different scenarios on how to look at torture and was very interesting. One view he gave was a “defense case” that expressed that the officer spots a terrorist who plans to detonate a bomb that could risk lives of many. The officer made the choice to tase the terrorist just enough to paralyze him from making the bomb go off. Another case was the “interrogation case” that speaks about a terrorist planting a bomb somewhere and security services using electric shocks to get the terrorist to speak on the whereabouts of the bomb.…
Anne Applebaum states in “The Torture Myth”, that America has operated under the false pretense that torture is a viable option for obtaining information, and because terrorists are malicious, so America needs more aggression to win. She argues that torture hurts the country more than it benefits. Torture…
The government is known to do controversial actions when it comes to interrogation. The most controversial tactic is torture treatment. Torture treatment has always been around, but there have always been issues with it. The main issue is, is it constitutional? The eighth amendment states that no one is subject to cruel and unusual punishment.…
Torturing suspects or criminals is a very hot issue in the United States. There are many arguments between should the US officials torture terrorists when interrogating them. Michael Levin says he agrees on torturing terrorists for information in his essay, “The Case for Torture”. He addresses his arguments by giving a few hypothetical scenarios of terrorist attacks. One of the examples is, when there is an atomic bomb in Manhattan which is going to explode very soon, the US got the guy who planted it and need to get the location of the bomb and method to disarm it.…
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.”…
Finally, I believe only God has the power to do the right justice to those terrorists. So who are we to judge? My first reason why I believe terrorists do not deserve to be tortured is that they might be forced into it. They could be a part of a hierarchy that has control over them.…
The world soon joined the United Sates, and the end of World War II saw the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the 1980’s the United Nations adopted a detailed treaty on torture in peacetime. This left for a long standing terms of absolutely no torturing of any individual. However all of the decades of laws, and all of the championing of the United States against torture came crashing down in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks within the year the United States executive branch was using torture to gain information. This was against every single law because the United States and never officially declared war.…
They isolate them until they turn the people to their advantage. Even though it is justified because they are getting information from those being tortured, the novel 1984 is connected to the CIA torture report because of its accuracy and effectiveness. But the novel fails to take into account…
There is a thin line between torture, coercion, and persuasion. For some countries, torture is an adequate form of punishment used to not only instill fear, but to also show the consequences of prohibited actions to others. However, for the United States and other countries who have signed the Geneva Convention, torture is strictly prohibited, but is still practiced in different forms. The article “The Dark Art of Interrogation,” written by Mark Bowden, explores various interrogation techniques used throughout the War on Terror by the United States Military, the Israeli government, and the New York City Police force. Each of the agencies consistently agreed that using “hard torture” was “the classic shortcut for a lazy or incompetent investigator”(…
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…
Interrogating one man can help reveal additional information to help foil any other possible plans the terrorist may have up his sleeves. In addition the utilitarian principle still applies in this situation. In fact, it is even more justifiable, because the torturer only places one person in pain. Not only do you get to save more lives, but torturing someone only causes them temporary physical pain. Killing thousands is permanent damage.…
If torture will be the only way to obtain information to prevent the detonation of the atomic bomb in Times Square , torture should be and most likely will be used. What is more important? Human rights terrorists or protecting the lives of our citizens? The Church does not accept torture, two main reasons are: one is human dignity , which prohibits using it in any case .…
overlooked by almost all nations. Under the just war theory, once an enemy surrenders, they are not a threat to you anymore. It pretty much implies that it is wrong to torture and mistreat your enemies under almost any circumstance. As we know, many nations do not abide by this. We hear about prisoners being waterboarded, strapped to a mattress frame and electrocuted, and all sorts of horrible things.…
Since the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin was published in Newsweek in 1982, it has stirred up many debates regarding the universal use of torture. Levin believes that torture is justifiable in extreme cases such as preventing terrorism to save lives. Levin argues by giving examples of make-believe scenarios in which the only two options given are to either meet the demands of the terrorist or to torture the terrorist so that innocent lives can be spared; however, Levin’s argument is flawed because he never fully defines the boundaries which can be placed on the concept of torture that would ensure that the use of torture is not abused. He believes that the best way to address a problem in which one wants an immediate result…