Should Torture Be Authorized Essay
Legalizing Torture
Torture is always brought into discussion when a country enters into a war or a civil dispute. It is often argued whether it is right or wrong to use torture to obtain information. The “ticking bomb” theory is also refuted on the basis that these scenarios are rarely as dire as they seem, and usually even if torture was used, the information would most likely be obtained too late to avoid the event.
In light of the recent events such as the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq, torture has become a topic of close consideration. Torture is sometimes used when a person who is believed to have information about a possible harmful event or information about an illegal organization, is then inflicted with pain by members of the opposing side with a series of different physical and mental distresses, in hope of forcing the person to give over desired information. Torture has often been used during times of war and political unrest, and in situations where the information could protect the society from danger. I believe that torture is never an …show more content…
Authorization would mean that torture would be made legal but could only be used after a “torture warrant” was granted by a judge. In Heymann’s essay “Torture Should Not Be Authorize” he states, “Punches may be thrown, but anything we think of as ‘torture’ is considered an inexcusable practice. That revulsion will disappear if we make torture acceptable and legal whenever a judge accepts the judgment of intelligence officers…”. I agree with Heymann’s statement: if we begin authorizing torture we are accepting if as a justifiable way of gathering information and agreeing that in that type of situation if is acceptable to take away the rights of the person being tortured. Heymann also makes another good point in his essay, explaining that if we do agree to start authorizing torture, then we are showing other countries that it is
Torture is always brought into discussion when a country enters into a war or a civil dispute. It is often argued whether it is right or wrong to use torture to obtain information. The “ticking bomb” theory is also refuted on the basis that these scenarios are rarely as dire as they seem, and usually even if torture was used, the information would most likely be obtained too late to avoid the event.
In light of the recent events such as the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq, torture has become a topic of close consideration. Torture is sometimes used when a person who is believed to have information about a possible harmful event or information about an illegal organization, is then inflicted with pain by members of the opposing side with a series of different physical and mental distresses, in hope of forcing the person to give over desired information. Torture has often been used during times of war and political unrest, and in situations where the information could protect the society from danger. I believe that torture is never an …show more content…
Authorization would mean that torture would be made legal but could only be used after a “torture warrant” was granted by a judge. In Heymann’s essay “Torture Should Not Be Authorize” he states, “Punches may be thrown, but anything we think of as ‘torture’ is considered an inexcusable practice. That revulsion will disappear if we make torture acceptable and legal whenever a judge accepts the judgment of intelligence officers…”. I agree with Heymann’s statement: if we begin authorizing torture we are accepting if as a justifiable way of gathering information and agreeing that in that type of situation if is acceptable to take away the rights of the person being tortured. Heymann also makes another good point in his essay, explaining that if we do agree to start authorizing torture, then we are showing other countries that it is