Should anyone be able to strap a potential informant “to a board with his feet above his head, his mouth and nose covered,[and pour water] over his face” (”Is Torture Effective”) in order to extract information or destroy “entire villages...to kill just a few enemies”("Napalm use in Vietnam")? Imagine being in one of these situations; on the other hand, imagine being saved from a deadly attack because of information given by a tortured prisoner or finally feeling safe because a dangerous terrorist was killed in the destruction of a town. There is a fine line between morally just and unjust actions during wars and people are polarized when it comes to whether or not the U.S. should practice them. Although the use of illegal/questionable military
…show more content…
These people have opposed these tactics because “most people -to end their suffering- will provide false information” (Is Torture Ever Justified”). Although this may be the case sometimes, there are countless examples of when attacks have been stopped with the use of information given by these suspects. Along with the question of how reliable it is, many people believe that this is a moral issue that we can 't ignore. One skeptic of torture, Sune Segal, stated that “torture is the hallmark of history 's most abhorrent regimes and a violation of civilized value. Taking the ‘greater good’ approach to torture is intellectually and morally bankrupt”. Despite this argument, a large group of innocent people deserve to be saved before anyone who threatens them or a smaller group of people. The torture and fighting methods are not used to display power; it is strictly used to protect what is right. Another argument includes the fact that the potential informant is just that, potential. There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to put someone in the interrogation chair; however, there has to be a substantial amount of incriminating evidence to even bring a person to the attention of the military. Although some may see the new military tactics as immoral, there are reason and justification behind every
These people have opposed these tactics because “most people -to end their suffering- will provide false information” (Is Torture Ever Justified”). Although this may be the case sometimes, there are countless examples of when attacks have been stopped with the use of information given by these suspects. Along with the question of how reliable it is, many people believe that this is a moral issue that we can 't ignore. One skeptic of torture, Sune Segal, stated that “torture is the hallmark of history 's most abhorrent regimes and a violation of civilized value. Taking the ‘greater good’ approach to torture is intellectually and morally bankrupt”. Despite this argument, a large group of innocent people deserve to be saved before anyone who threatens them or a smaller group of people. The torture and fighting methods are not used to display power; it is strictly used to protect what is right. Another argument includes the fact that the potential informant is just that, potential. There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to put someone in the interrogation chair; however, there has to be a substantial amount of incriminating evidence to even bring a person to the attention of the military. Although some may see the new military tactics as immoral, there are reason and justification behind every