Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Humanity of Torture
In the article advocating torture, the author makes some valid points while allowing his argument to move at a pace that discourages independent thought. While the author presents us situations in which torture seems to be the only option, he does not give any thought to situations in which torture could potentially not be the best course of action. A simple fact the author tends to ignore throughout the duration of the article is that a person, when placed under extreme duress will admit to absolutely anything. If you placed me under extreme enough pain, I would admit to killing John F. Kennedy, despite the fact that I would not be born for another 30+ years. This makes torture an unreliable method of extracting of information; gaining information that is credible is oftentimes impossible. Another erroneous detail in the article is the author's assumption that we know with absolute certainty who the perpetrator of an attack that has not occurred yet is. This is almost never the case. This assumption is what leads to innocent people being hurt. Throughout the paper, I felt as though I were reading a novelization of the television program 24; a show which I thoroughly enjoy, but usually do not reference in attempts to make an argument. I do however, agree with the author of the article on some points. The fact that he doesn't allow his argument to become too large aids this piece of work. He is not arguing that torture should be used as punishment for crimes, something I agree with. He is also not making the argument that torture is humane or even desirable. He is simply arguing that in some extreme cases, torture is a viable option. This I agree with, however the situations he envisions seem somewhat farfetched. I realize that there are instances in which torture may be the only realistic option; I am not idealistic enough to believe that we can do away with a practice that has been a staple of crime-fighting since humanity began. I do believe however, it should be limited as much as possible and that the scenarios the author envisions are somewhat unrealistic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with your entry. I do think that torture should be left on the table, but I do not believe that it should be jumped to so easily. In fact, I think that the author of the article looks to makes torture a more used response - his entire article seems to focus on situations that will, probably, never exist.
While torture should be left on the table (although in a dark, nearly-out-of-reach corner), the article creates an alarmist atmosphere. If, in the 1 in a billion chance a situation in the book happens, then torture should be considered. Otherwise, though, I think that it would be wise to keep with what separates us from animals: the rule of impartial law.
Post a Comment