Sunday, April 6, 2008
Torture
In the current section on war and things surrounding conflicts I think it is important to discuss the subject of torture during wartime. Recently there has been a lot of heated debate on the issue and whether it should be used as a way to gain intelligence in situations of national security. The decision to no longer use a technique know as water boarding was recently overturned by the White house and is now considered acceptable under the circumstances of danger to national security. This I think is a good decision because in the International Declaration of Human Rights it states that everyone should uphold their own rights as long as they do not infringe on others. In this case I think that it is nessecary for governments to use torture in the situation that the tortured person has intelligence that could be used to help keep the rights of the general population secure. Therefore I think that in these cases torture should be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First of all, how can anyone be "upholding their own right" if they are being fake-drowned? And how is torturing someone not infringing upon their rights?
And where is the limit-- you said that if we KNOW that the tortured person has information then its ok, but how can we be sure that they even possess that intelligence, and how many cases can there be of mistakes before we realize that it is a cruel and flawed method. Plus, the more you harm the individual, the more likely they are to give in, but to give you false information or a fake confession just to stop the torturing.
here is an article that describes one case where torture was actually counterproductive, as the victims volunteered all the information pre-torture, and the only results of the torture were false confessions.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013290.php
also, I'm not sure how to get the full article but this little bit from the economist talks about scare tactics--apparently the best tool in gaining intelligence but better served if you can avoid demolishing the US's reputation and instilling fear without causing physical harm. This article is pretty balanced, and I wish we could get the full text but I reccomend it anyway.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/04/how_to_keep_friends_and_gain_g.cfm
I do agree with some of what you have said. Yes, it is true that torture is a violation of human rights, and that it can sometimes be ineffective at getting truthful information. However it is important to understand that it can still be a very effective technique when used properly. It is not my belief to go around torture everyone, but I do believe it should be used in a situation of national emergency as, and only as, a last resort.
I have found many articles debating this issue and I came across one that I profoundly agree with. It was proposed that torture should be used only under the most necessary circumstances of national security. When it is used the president should sign a declaration stating that he understands full well that he is breaking international law and takes full responsibility for the instance and anything that might go wrong.
This is a realistic and effective solution to the debate and issue surrounding torture. Realistically you cant say that torture should be stopped all together. However, by having one person take the responsibility for any use of torture it is much easier to prosecute that person in a court of law if anything does go wrong. Whereas trying to punish a country, especially one as powerful as the United States, will either not happen or not be very effective. This is the stance I believe our country should take on torture and is a realistic and effective solution.
Post a Comment