The word interrogation can conjure many scenarios where getting critical information at any cost is the main objective. Is torture as a means of obtaining information that would save lives going too far? Torture is meant be cruel and demeaning and should only be allowed when there are no other options, and under certain conditions such as: innocent lives are in immediate danger, used on enemy combatants that do not fall under the Geneva Convention, or any enemy that breaks the protocols of the Geneva Convention. Reasonably, these situations are the only way to justify torture as a tool to ascertain vital information that could prevent another 9/11 attack.
Is the life or quality of life of a criminal more important than that of an innocent citizen? Respectively no, this thought is supported in the day to day decisions made by law enforcement and rationalized as a means to use torture in order to save the life of an individual or many people. An example that exemplifies the rationale “a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage’s head, threatening to kill the hostage unless a certain (unreasonable) demand is met. In such a case it is not only permissible, but desirable for police to shoot (and kill) the wrongdoer if they get a “clear shot”. This is especially true if it’s known that the wrongdoer has a history of serious violence, and hence is more likely to carry out the threat.” (Bagaric 416) In a situation in which there are two aggressors, and one aggressor is captured, while the other has the hostage Bagaric says, “In the hostage scenario, it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person. How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life in the second scenario? (Bagaric 416).
The Black Death is the name later given to the epidemic of plague that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351. The disaster affected all aspects of life. Depopulation and shortage of labor hastened changes already inherent in the rural economy; the substitution of wages for labor services was accelerated, and social stratification became less rigid. Psychological morbidity affected the arts; in ...
It is prohibited in the United States of America to torture an individual under any circumstances; the federal, state, and local law enforcement can justify the killing of a wrongdoer to save a life, but not the use of torture during an interrogation to get information that could save the life of an innocent.
The next two points are tied together by the Geneva Convention. This consisted of four treaties which were created in cooperation with the United Nations and Red Cross at four conventions; the most recent and referred to convention was in 1949. The Geneva Convention is primarily concerned with the treatment of injured or ill members of the armed forces, civilians, and prisoners of war during hostilities. The first convention dealt with the wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field. The second dealt with the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims. The third addressed prisoners of war and the fourth and final convention dealt with civilians in times of war.”(redcross.lv).
Due to these conventions, the government of which ever country in question had an obligation to uphold the rights of those specified above, and make sure they were treated as well as that country’s own civilians and armed forces. If an individual, or group does not fall under the Geneva Convention (e.g. terrorist groups like the Taliban, or Al Qaeda) then that group or individual should not be subjugated to the treatment specified under the Geneva Convention. When evidence indicates that a group or individual has key information, then torture as means of interrogation should be an option. Not only should torture be allowed for those who do not fall under the Geneva Convention, it should be so that all who violate or break the Geneva Convention should be subjugated to torture if necessary in order to get crucial information that could possibly save lives.
Cliques: Where do we Belong Driving down a deserted road, I arrived at a section which was filled with crows. All I could see was black covering the pavement in front of me. Nearing this stretch of highway, away the birds flocked. Continuing on, I glanced in my rearview mirror to see the crows gathered back where they had started. I couldnt decide if the crows just couldnt bear to be apart for ...
“no right or interest is absolute…..rights must always yield to consequences,….we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can – but fail to – prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference.”(Bagaric 417-418).
This has been debated and said to be wrong but, the loss of life hurts greater than bent principles. The ultimate goal should be to utilize whatever tools we have, such as torture for the greater good of our society.
Bagaric, Mirko. “A Case of Torture.” The Short Prose Reader. Comp. Gilbert H. Muller and Harvey S. Wiener. 12th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. 415-18. Print.
Red Cross, and United Nations. “Geneva Conventions.” Redcross- Geneva Convention. Red Cross. Web. 11 Sept. 2011. .