Would you be able to hear about your husband, wife, brother, sister, or just a really close friend, being taken in as a prisoner and hearing about how much torture the terrorists made them receive? Torture is presently one of the largest debates in the United States. Whether or not torture should used on terrorists to gain information has been a heated argument not only among US liberals but also world wide. Torture is defined on dictionary.com as being the act of inflicting excruciating pain as punishment in order to receive either a confession or information in general. Torture should be allowed in cases in which the information that is trying to be obtained is necessary in order to save civilian lives. However, it should not be miss used for personal gain and should not be administered in all acts of terrorism.
Torture is necessary in certain cases to save thousands of lives. Though it is an extreme measure on one individual to obtain information, it is also extremely important in order to maintain the safety of innocent lives that could possibly be at steak. In an article printed in The Associated Press titled, “Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture,” Billy Adams said “ I don’t think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer.” Billy Adams shares similar opinions on torture as thousands of Americans especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.Though he believes that torture should be administered, he also acknowledges that there are limits to how the torture is used and to whom it involves. With Al- Queda on the lose military leaders must use all acts of force to gain information in order to save civilian lives both over seas and in the United States. Those that show a clear knowledge of future terrorist attacks should be subject to the necessary techniques used to retain the information needed.
With the recent terrorist attacks leaving many civilians dead there has been a huge increase in the need for information. The government must do what is necessary to obtain this information simply because the life of someone’s mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, or son could be the next victim. Several people have this image in their minds that the government uses this force without just cause and that there should be severe consequences for their actions but take this into account: If a family member happened to work in a local train station and that train station just happened to have been a possible target for a terrorist attack would the family members not want to save the life of not only their family but also all of the other people also inside the station. Well unfortunately the information needed to do so could only be gotten from a terrorist. With all of this information given, how would you go about obtaining the information needed to save their lives? The war on terrorism is not the same as it was in the beginning. There are several new types of bombs and other weapons that without our knowledge can become devastating to innocent people.
One man or woman that chooses to partake in harmful crimes consequently place themselves in the role of a terrorist. These men and women knowingly put innocent people in harms way and sacrifice their own lives to get their message across. If they are going to use their body for harm anyway what is the negative side of extreme questioning them to save innocents. This is where the term “kill one save a thousand” actually makes sense. For a terrorist to already have decided to use their body as a martyr for their religion it is only fair that those trying to gain information use whatever force necessary to receive it. The question of whether an innocent civilian caught committing a terrorist act unwillingly should be subjected to the same types of torture depends on the circumstances and the willingness of the victim to contribute to the investigation. Those who are victims also choose to withhold information however for them to choose to do so places them in the category of a terrorist as well. Others also tend to believe that an eye for an eye technique is not always effective. If terrorist are informed that we are also using torture tactics to retain information from prisoners then they also will fill the need to do the same, only without purpose. Their torture may be to only gain attention from the United States government.
The largest objection is that torture is inhumane. Torture takes society back to errors such as Vietnam and even as far back as the Holocaust. Though these were separate cases torture was still administered for a reason. The United States however, does not randomly torture haji soldiers unless their is a probable cause. Most of the terrorists found do know information that can be very valuable to the armed forces fighting over seas. Calling the United States inhumane for using torturing techniques against these terrorists is ignorant considering that without the information gained from them, an entire city could be destroyed. Inhumanity is torturing for an unjustifiable reason. The armed forces have a legitimate reason for using excessive force on suspects.
Torture should be allowed in cases involving terrorist acts. Those that withhold vital information needed to keep innocent civilians as well as our own United States soldiers safe is a necessity. For every strong issue such as torture, there will always be objections; however, those objections must also consider that outcome of a situation where the information needed is not retained. The consequences could be catastrophic.
it seems short it should contain 1000 words. also the first paragraph the fount size needs to be fixed.
This is a well developed paper. I am pro-torture and pro-capital punishment though. I did not clearly see the opposition. You need to be sure to clearly show both sides. If you do this your paper will much better. Also, what if someone is associated with the terrorist? For instance, a man and women go to the bank to make a “withdrawl.” The women does not know the intentions of the man. She waits in the car, and he holds the people hostage. He then places 4lbs of C$ on each hostage and simply leaves. He tells the police that if they follow him, the hostages will die. He gets into the car and the women drives off. The woman is still unaware, they drive off. the camera seen both of them so she is now an accessory to terrorism. She would then recieve the same punish as the man will, because the detonator is hidden. Then what???