Is Torture a Necessary Evil
14th September 2013
Torture is a necessary evil.
After reading this article and evaluating both sides of the argument, my opinion remains the same. I disagree that torture is necessary; it is a barbaric breach of human rights. After looking at statistics, only 8% of Guantanamo detainees were Al Qaeda fighters, this is a shockingly low percentage in proportion to the 517 Guantanamo that were detained. British laws have deemed torture illegal and yet at least 6 detainees alleged that British forces were involved in the torture.
Torturing cannot go on; the pros do not outweigh the cons of torture. In exceptional circumstances, lives may be saved, but at what cost? Where does it end, as stated in the article, will family members become torture victims? As the initial suspect may not have value for their own life, they turn to his/her loved ones? If a suspect has been detained, regardless of what their crime may be, they still have the right to remain silent. Any forced extraction of information goes against the fundamental human rights, and even if information is gained, what assurance do we have that it will be correct information? In the heat of the moment, it may seem that the information is true, to end the pain that the victim is in, yet it may all be fiction. These are clearly not risks worth taking, and in my opinion, anyone who is willing to submit a fellow human being to that amount of pain and discomfort, does not fill me with confidence in the fact that they are in a position of power.
In recent news, countries like the UK or the USA are undecided whether to involve themselves in the business of Syria; they claim that involvement, in the sense of morals, is the right thing to do. Yet there is still a debate on whether torture should be legal, does one not contradict the other? It seems extremely hypocritical that on one hand, the armed forces have a sense of human rights in one way, yet on the other hand, claims that torture is necessary, which
Torture is a necessary evil.
After reading this article and evaluating both sides of the argument, my opinion remains the same. I disagree that torture is necessary; it is a barbaric breach of human rights. After looking at statistics, only 8% of Guantanamo detainees were Al Qaeda fighters, this is a shockingly low percentage in proportion to the 517 Guantanamo that were detained. British laws have deemed torture illegal and yet at least 6 detainees alleged that British forces were involved in the torture.
Torturing cannot go on; the pros do not outweigh the cons of torture. In exceptional circumstances, lives may be saved, but at what cost? Where does it end, as stated in the article, will family members become torture victims? As the initial suspect may not have value for their own life, they turn to his/her loved ones? If a suspect has been detained, regardless of what their crime may be, they still have the right to remain silent. Any forced extraction of information goes against the fundamental human rights, and even if information is gained, what assurance do we have that it will be correct information? In the heat of the moment, it may seem that the information is true, to end the pain that the victim is in, yet it may all be fiction. These are clearly not risks worth taking, and in my opinion, anyone who is willing to submit a fellow human being to that amount of pain and discomfort, does not fill me with confidence in the fact that they are in a position of power.
In recent news, countries like the UK or the USA are undecided whether to involve themselves in the business of Syria; they claim that involvement, in the sense of morals, is the right thing to do. Yet there is still a debate on whether torture should be legal, does one not contradict the other? It seems extremely hypocritical that on one hand, the armed forces have a sense of human rights in one way, yet on the other hand, claims that torture is necessary, which