Torture is Justifiable
The limited use of torture should be permitted in the US in order to protect the wellbeing of the public. Torture can be both an effective means of gathering information, and it can be reasonably justified in some circumstances. Some of these circumstances can be any time where there is a huge amount of human wellbeing are in danger. With out a doubt, some people may be worried that allowing torture may make way for several human rights violations. However, this is not the case, torture can be used with moral justification. Now the true questions is proposed; “Can torture ever be an acceptable form of acquiring information?” Regardless of what many people might believe, there is a large amount of evidence that suggests that torture can be, if done correctly, a very effective way of acquiring information needed for the safety of the general public. Take for example, the French military using several sorts of torture in Algeria. In 1956, the Algerian National Liberation Front started up a terrorist bombing campaign that often targeted the public. Because of said campaign, the French government initiated a counterinsurgency campaign in order to defeat the Algerian National Liberation Front. This campaign included a number of torture techniques witch were used a handful of times. With the use of these techniques and a highly powerful military, just month’s later France was victorious. This is very strong evidence from history that shows that it is indeed possible to use torture as an acceptable way to acquire information. (www.debate.org)
Most people might say that torture is a violation of human rights. However, at times it is necessary to understand that said torture in proper context of defending the life of the innocent. When has it ever been questioned morally if a police officer shot someone down, that was attempting against the life of another person? No one will argue for the rights of the person allegedly attempting to kill or harm another person. In doing so the guilty loses many of their rights. There is little to no difference at all between a man threatening a life and a man that retains information that can be used to save the life of many civilians. (http:/dbp.idebate.org)
Another argument those opposing torture might say is “What if the person being tortured is innocent?” However with the advanced modern technology we have the intelligence services exchange information between different intelligence agencies all over the world. The chances of having under custody someone innocent are extremely small. The chances have also decreased as years have gone by and technology in the secret service has improved. Many questions have been proposed in regards if whether or not the person being tortured, who is more often then not a terrorist, is wrong. Regardless if the captive is wrong or right, it is the sworn duty. This is because of the “social contract”. (http://securingliberty.idebate.org)
At times it is said that the suspect can lie. However, the captive is mentally broken down. Because of such physical pain, the victim can only think about the pain. The victim then feels dependent and powerless. The victim feels so extremely dependent of the torturer that they can be made to release the information. And even if the information is wrong or misleading, they can check it and if wrong, they continue torturing. Furthermore, allowing torture will not normalize it. Terrorism has become more and more of a threat to the Nation than ever before. Terrorism is of high impact and very difficult to detect. Tensions between the Middle East and the West are even more likely to increase. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that terrorist attacks will rise as well. The government of the United States of America has the right to acquire information needed for the safety of its people, regardless of the means in which the information was acquired.(www.debate.org)
Terrorist attacks are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document