Torture: The Pros and Cons of the Issue

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The use of torture as an instrument of intimidation, terror, and control is as old as the times humans organized their first societies. Some theorists hold that torture has legitimate uses and thus there is no need to decry or dismiss it as practices of ‘barbarians’ inconsistent with a free democratic society as represented by the US. The essay examines whether torture needs to be banned universally or are their occasions when its use is inevitable or even desirable.

The success of the Mc Cain amendment to ban “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the United States throws up serious practical difficulties for America’s war on Terrorism. The essay argues that sometimes for the greater good of society, individual good has to be sacrificed.

The counterargument of the humanists that any form of torture leads to excesses such as Abu Ghraib and that Stalin’s secret police despite serious excesses were not successful in solving even simple crimes and were ultimately disbanded holds some weight. However, the very fact that a terrorist may hold valuable information that has the potential to save thousands of lives may justify the use of torture to extract that information when deemed necessary.

The essay argues that terrorists who plant bombs or plan to kill innocent civilians do not come under the definition of lawful combatants and thus do not deserve the same treatment codified in the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war. By restricting one’s options, only helps to strengthen the hand of the enemy who in any case has no value for the lives of their targets. Thus under any law of natural justice, of self-defense, and anticipatory self-defense, extreme measures such as torture are justifiable for the defense of the country and its people.

To Torture or Not to Torture, That is the Question

The use of torture as an instrument of intimidation, terror, and control is as old as the times humans organized their first societies. Some theorists hold that torture has legitimate uses and thus there is no need to decry or dismiss it as practices of ‘barbarians’ inconsistent with a free democratic society as represented by the US. The issue therefore worth examining is whether torture needs to be banned universally or are their occasions when its use is inevitable or even desirable.

Senator John Mc Cain has held that torture is inhumane and has steered the McCain amendment that would ban “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the United States (Krauthammer 1). However, such a formulation defies some serious ground realities. It is an established principle of statecraft that sometimes for the ‘greater good’, individual good needs to be sacrificed. Should such an individual, say a terrorist possess knowledge that can save thousands of lives then by any logic or common sense or indeed statecraft, any means employed that can help extract such information would be a justifiable act.

The humanists may argue that ‘third-degree’ measures are open to abuse such as those that took place at Abu Ghraib. Bukovsky observes that “in its heyday, Joseph Stalin’s notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes” (4). This finally forced Stalin to dismantle the NKVD. This argument implies that any easy dispensation given to law enforcement agencies to legitimately use torture will ultimately criminalize the upholders of law with disastrous effects on the free American society. It could also lead to the interrogators to “become alcoholics or drug addicts, violent criminals or, at the very least, despotic and abusive fathers and mothers” (Bukovsky, Vladimir 12).

The counter-argument to such humanist views is that undoubtedly, without checks and balances any human endeavor tends to gravitate toward the extremes. However, if stringent measures are put into place, code of conduct well defined, and accountability well established then chances of abuse in implementing ‘third-degree’ measures could be curbed.

The world today lives in extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures. To state that the American democratic structure will sit by a ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario in deference to ‘human rights and humane means of extracting information would be a dereliction of duty. The prime responsibility of any state is to ensure the safety and security of its people. If in the defense of this safety and security, certain values require modifications albeit, even harsh measures such as torture then it can be considered as legitimate or even mandatory. The terrorists who plant bombs or plan to kill innocent civilians do not come under the definition of lawful combatants and thus do not deserve the same treatment codified in the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war. By restricting one’s options, only helps to strengthen the hand of the enemy who in any case has no value for the lives of their targets. Thus under any law of natural justice, of self-defense, and anticipatory self-defense, extreme measures such as torture is justifiable for the defense of the country and its people.

Works Cited

Bukovsky, Vladimir. “Torture’s Long Shadow.” 2005. Washington Post. Web.

Krauthammer, Charles. “The Truth About Torture.” 2005. The Weekly Standard. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Torture: The Pros and Cons of the Issue

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)