Affirmative Argument for Torture
AFFIRMATIVE
Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. Justify is to guide by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. In any circumstances, how could inflicting pain upon a human being be done in fairness? In any circumstances, how could torture be justified? It cannot. Torture has been regarded as one of the most serious human rights violations and has been banned by many human rights conventions including The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified by 129 countries including the United States. Furthermore the Geneva Conventions protects the rights of prisoners of war, which was constructed as a result of seeing the horrors of war. Still today, many find the need to argue that there are times when torture is just. This should not be a debate, considering that we already have laws that should put this battle to a rest. However, officials and leaders find the need to work around the prohibition of torture, arguing that it is needed in given situations. Officials have even proposed a torture warrant that allows torture when granted by the president. This is preposterous not to mention hypocritical, and the same as saying there should be a warrant for murder, burglary, or any other criminal acts for given situations. The international law that bans torture exists in times of peace as well as times of war and should be abided by. Never should illegal doings be made legit, because it opens the door for others to do the same, making world criminals in whom we were trying to eliminate in the first place. Then what is the plan to convict them? Surely it wouldn’t be by means of torture, would it? Then there is the reoccurring scenario of the ticking-bomb: A man is captured who has hidden a bomb that will kill a number of innocent people. Would torture be justified in
Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. Justify is to guide by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. In any circumstances, how could inflicting pain upon a human being be done in fairness? In any circumstances, how could torture be justified? It cannot. Torture has been regarded as one of the most serious human rights violations and has been banned by many human rights conventions including The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified by 129 countries including the United States. Furthermore the Geneva Conventions protects the rights of prisoners of war, which was constructed as a result of seeing the horrors of war. Still today, many find the need to argue that there are times when torture is just. This should not be a debate, considering that we already have laws that should put this battle to a rest. However, officials and leaders find the need to work around the prohibition of torture, arguing that it is needed in given situations. Officials have even proposed a torture warrant that allows torture when granted by the president. This is preposterous not to mention hypocritical, and the same as saying there should be a warrant for murder, burglary, or any other criminal acts for given situations. The international law that bans torture exists in times of peace as well as times of war and should be abided by. Never should illegal doings be made legit, because it opens the door for others to do the same, making world criminals in whom we were trying to eliminate in the first place. Then what is the plan to convict them? Surely it wouldn’t be by means of torture, would it? Then there is the reoccurring scenario of the ticking-bomb: A man is captured who has hidden a bomb that will kill a number of innocent people. Would torture be justified in