The mere mention of the word “torture” elicits a vast array of possible responses. People of diverse backgrounds may view torture as a needed tool to justify an end where others may fear the concept altogether. People from different socioeconomic backgrounds may have an entirely different view of torture and the purpose behind the act itself depending on their education. If anything, the topic is thought provoking by any group discussing the subject. Torture has most recently been justified as an information-gathering tool and intelligence verification act. Representing the global position on human rights is hard to maintain when the country advocating those rights are the first to violate them. The United Nations has taken a zero tolerance position on torture and considers them equal to war crimes. The attempt to justify torture within four basic ethical theories is possible but not probable.
Just some thoughts on why Civil Rights are so important… I have an entire paper on the topic if you are interested in reading, please email me and ask… email@example.com
This point paper by Christopher Grollnek concludes by:
Defining torture is different from committing torture. The act of committing torture is left to the ethical values and principles of a person charged with the commission of the act. The observation of general terms and theories within this essay allow the reader to grasp the reality of torture. From a legal definition to the global ban of its use, a society cannot come to the conclusion torture would be ethical from any standard or for any purpose. When America sets the standard for civil rights and ethical treatment of others, sidestepping the commitment represents weakness. Enemies of the state and regions will capitalize on these weaknesses in an attempt to use them against America and allies. America continues to set a positive example and must continue to do so by advocating alternate methods of information gathering.
There is an absolute parallel to be drawn from Civil Rights and wrongful arrests in relation to acts of torture for information gathering. Many could and generally do argue that corrosion and long interviews eliciting responses that may not be the absolute facts could circle back to acts of torture. This subject draws so many opinions, I am actually excited to hear yours. What if someone possessed information on an active shooter event yet to take place and the only way to ensure preservation of life would be torturing the subject for the information. Does that change the value of the act or can we categorize torture into justifiable means?
Let me hear your thoughts…