The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture. Torture is beginning to be seen as ineffective because prisoners have been known to produce false information to evade torturers. In fact, Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, reported, "Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse." The United States is not benefiting from the use of torture during the War on Terror. The United States is suffering from its use of torture. David Cole of The New York Review, wrote, "The abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have become international embarrassments for the United States, and by many accounts have helped to recruit young people to join Al Qaeda
our coercive and inhumane interrogation tactics have effectively granted many of the prisoners immunity from trial. Because the evidence we might use against them is tainted by their mistreatment, trials would likely turn into occasions for exposing the United States' brutal interrogation tactics." In contrast, there have been cases of torture that have been effective, such as the case of child soldiers. Tactics of forcing children to fight in armies have included kidnapping children and injecting children with drugs. The United...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document