Use of Torture Against Terror Suspects

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 United Nations “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” considers torture as a serious violation of human dignity (HREA para 1).The UN argues that torture is not justifiable since it amounts to a violation of peoples’ fundamental freedoms. As such, the UN unconditionally bans torture in whatever form and for whatever reason. The UN defines torture as:

“severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or third person information or a confession or punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed” (HREA para 3).

This definition alludes to the fact that torture is improper in a civil society. However, this view is perceived as too shallow, one-sided, unwise, and not in reality with present-day challenges (para 1). This implies that there are some instances when the use of torture is not only permissible but morally right. Suffice to state that torture has been used successfully in the past to thwart future terror attacks. As such, President Obama should not prosecute those who advocated for it.

The UN unconditionally bans the use of torture against terror suspects. However, this ban is not in reality with the present day challenges. There are instances when torture is not only necessary but also the only effective way to ensure that the safety and security of innocent people is safeguarded. For instance, torture is necessary if it prevents the occurrence of terrorist attacks. To elucidate the need for torture as a terrorism prevention measure, it is vital to consider several hypothetical cases.

To begin with, consider a situation when a terror attack is imminent. Torture is necessary to save the lives of innocent civilians. As such, it is morally appropriate to subject any person suspected of plotting the attack to save the lives of innocent citizens. While terrorism is an extreme case, there are other modest instances when torture seems necessary since any other method of investigation might not be fruitful.

Levin (para 5) states that the public too, would agree to the use of torture against terror suspects, especially if the victim is a child. According to the results of a hypothetical poll conducted on mothers, a majority of the members of the public would approve torture against terrorists who kidnap newborns from hospitals.

While these are just hypothetical cases, memos released by CIA prove that future terrorist attacks would not have been prevented if waterboarding would not have been used against terror suspects (Thompson and Ghosh para 5). This justifies the need to consider the use of torture as a means to safeguard the safety and lives of innocent civilians.

It is evident that the use of torture against terror suspects can deter the loss of innocent lives. However, the definition of torture has been the subject of legal debate. Some of the torture methods used to obtain information from terrorists are not legally considered as torture. For instance, debate exists both within and without the US justice department on whether waterboarding falls under torture. Some critics argue that torture means any method which inflicts severe physical and mental pain on victims.

Waterboarding is not torture since it does not inflict severe physical and mental pain on its victims (Safire 5). This assertion seems to be the reason why President Obama halted the prosecution of CIA officials who supported the use of waterboarding and other methods of torture against terror suspects.

In his argument, President Obama states that even though the use of waterboarding against terror suspects violates basic human rights, it was facilitated by the legal realities of the time (Meyer para 3). This implies that even the most liberal minds acknowledge that torture can be legally permissible.

Suffice to state that torture is neither advocated as a means to obtain crucial information, nor as a means of punishing wrong doers. Instead, torture is advocated as a measure of ensuring that national security is not compromised. Additionally, torture is advocated when necessary to save the lives of innocent people, who do not volunteer to be harmed. This assertion opens debate on the need to protect the individual rights of terrorists. It is imperative to note that every individual has inalienable rights to life, security, and freedom.

However, each of these individual rights comes with corresponding duties, obligations, and responsibilities. This implies that there are consequences for violation of these rights. Given this, a person who plans to carry out an attack that endangers the lives of innocent people not only violates but also denies himself individual basic rights, including the right to life.

Therefore, such a person accepts the liability of his heinous acts. Unfortunately, by protecting the life of a terrorist, the lives of innocent people are endangered. According to Levin (para 5), this is moral cowardice. Since life should be protected using any means possible, it is thus necessary to protect the life of innocent people, even if it means sacrificing the life of an individual; the terrorist.

The assertion above leads to a debate on whether President Obama should prosecute those who advocated for torture. To answer this question, it is imperative to put a few issues in perspective. To begin with, the use of torture is not advocated as a means to obtain information from suspects but a crucial deterrent to mass murder that might occur as a result of a terrorist attack. Secondly, the legality of some of the torture methods used, such as waterboarding, cannot be ascertained.

President Obama condemned the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding but confessed that the method was legally permissible at the time. Additionally, memos from the CIA prove that waterboarding has effectively thwarted future terrorist attacks. More importantly, the dignity and sanctity of life has to be protected at all cost, including sacrificing the life of a terrorist.

Unfortunately, protecting the life of a terrorist puts the lives of many innocent people at great risk. This amounts to moral cowardice. As such, President Obama is justified in preferring not to prosecute those who advocated for the use of torture against terrorists.

It is morally justifiable to sacrifice the life of one person in order to save the lives of other people. Such justification comes in the wake of the debate on the rationale of using torture as a deterrent to terrorism. Pro-life activists argue that the life of a terrorist needs to be protected. However, the lives of innocent civilians threatened by terrorist activities are equally important.

Such lives must be protected at whatever cost, including sacrificing the lives of those who plot the attacks. Thus, using torture to protect innocent civilians becomes morally justifiable. Based on this argument, President Obama is justified in not prosecuting those who advocated for torture as a terror deterrent method.

Works Cited

HREA. “Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment”. Web.

Levin, Michael. “The Case for Torture.” Web.

Meyer, Bill. “Obama Say No Charges to Be Filed Against CIA Officials for Waterboarding During Bush Years.” Cleveland Live Inc. 2009. Web.

Safire, William. “On Language: Waterboarding”. The New York Times, 2008. Web.

Thompson, Mark and Bobby Ghosh. “Did Waterboarding Prevent Terrorism Attacks?” Time. 2009. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Use of Torture Against Terror Suspects

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)