Torture to me is when you terrorize someone until they say something or they do something to get you to stop, or when you cause physical pain or abuse to someone. I think that at sometimes there is a point where you can torture someone but it would have to be to a certain extant. Like that one method with the water-board, i think that would be a reasonable way but nothing more than that.
I believe torture is physical and psychological pain that is ongoing until the torturer feels as if you've had enough. Physical pain as in a beating, or some cruel way to cause your body harm. Psychologically is basically meaning emotionally hurting you by possibly causing public humiliation. No, not often do you see this but yes it would hurt someone emotionally. Torture is justified, depending on what that person did. If it's something not as bad, then no that person does not deserve it. Where as if the crime was one which may have cost many peoples lives, then yes. Torture can be used to a certain extent. If you're using it to interrogate someone, and that person still does not give you information after you've tortured them countless times, then there is no point. I would say just kill them since they wouldn't even give out information, even if being close to dead.
Torture should be used as a severe punishment, in which it is. In that case it makes it most of the time justified (again depending on the crime).
I think that for harmful actions done unto others to be considered torture, the person must be doing the act of cruelty for their satisfaction, whether that satisfaction be merely from seeing someone go through a lot of pain or whether their satisfaction is obtaining private government information from people who have terrorized our country in order to be recognized for doing their job well. If the person is causing harm to another for an extended period of time, yet is doing it for the good of the person undergoing the pain, then I do not think it should be considered torture. For example, teachers forcing students to take difficult exams, although it may seem like torture, are doing it for the betterment of the students' knowledge. I do not believe torture can ever be justified, because my definition of torture is the pain you are inflicting on others for selfish reasons. Making others go through pain can be justified, so long as the person is trying to do their best for the victim, but I do not think torture can ever be justified.
Tourture-noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. This is the dictionary definition of the word, the only thing that I would add to this definition is that the pain can be both phsyical and mental.In certain cases I believe that torture is justified. If you are aware that this person has information and just not telling you then you should. If you got an anyomous tip that this guy was bad, but had no evidence I think it would be wrong to do something extemeley harsh to this person. You have to know for sure before you torture them. In some instances torture is the right wya to go about getting information.
Torture is intentionally inflicting psychological, emotional, and physical pain in order to obtain information and in some cases to punish those who have committed a crime. For me, I feel that it is necessary to torture someone if it means that the information you are intending to receive will save lives. Important information pertaining to national security and in time of war to receive war intelligence are reasonable grounds to torture the enemy. That would only be the justifiable grounds for torture, you cannot just torture someone who will not tell you who stole a bag of potato chips in the lunch line. Also, some people who commit atrocious crimes like murders should have the option to be convicted to death by torture, that use to be the electric chair. But, the only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional considering it's cruel and unusual punishment.
The dictionary definition of torture, according to dictionary.com is: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. This definition however, is lacking the emotional baggage associated with continual fear and torment. Torture, in my opinion, is the act of continual verbal, physical or emotional abuse in order to gain information, revenge, or for racial, religious or ethnic prejudices. There is no excuse or reason that torture is ever justified; torture scars victims for life and only generates more hate towards the nation responsible. Terror suspects often do not have enough evidence against them for a conviction, which increases the desire to torture. Those who are innocent can never be repaid or compensated for their experience, nor can those who are guilty be deemed a terrorist when they themselves have been a victim of terror. Just like the law forbids murdering those who have murdered or stealing from those who have stolen, the law should forbid torturing anyone- terror suspect or not. In class, the issue of nuclear warfare was discussed. Is it okay to torture someone at the expense of saving thousands of others? Originally I said no. However, when situations are this dire, when the lives of millions will be affected worldwide and future generations are at risk of being harmed, I can understand why some would jump to torture. Yet, I still believe there are other, moral ways to get information from a terror suspect. I don’t know what these ways are, but I hope they exist, because I feel torturing someone is just as bad as whatever the suspect in question has committed or intends to commit. Plus, one can never be certain that the torture will solve any problems or get any answers; like the case of Abu Zubaida discussed in the Washington Post article. Zubaida was held and tortured daily, yet, what intelligence has the United States gained? September 11th has already occurred, and no amount of torture can ever change the past. These very acts of torture and the unwillingness to cooperate with the rest of the world are partially responsible for the state of crisis the world currently endures. Ending torture tactics is one of the first steps to world peace, and needs to occur before terrorism can be halted and reversed.
I believe torture is the use of continued abuse against a considered enemy in order to attain information or just for their own pleasure. The abuse can include anything from harsh conditions, restraint on their body, waterbarding, physical abuse or simply the loss of key human rights. I do believe that the use of torture is justified, but only up to an extent. Use of torture during interrogation of a very serious situation in which mass amounts of innocent people are in danger I believe is justified. However I do not believe in seriously harmful physical abuse as done to Abu Zubaida, such as being tied at the neck and slammed into a wall. It was said that Zubaida suffered serious after effects (seizures). Torture, I believe, is justified if the abuse only has lasting short term effects, not long term effects in which the person is disabled. Although I say torture can be justified in some situations, it should stay only a serious punishment and only used when completely necessary to obtain information.
I think torture is the idea of having a person put through both mental and/or physical abuse. And Im not all for it but if theirs evidence that someone deserves it, than thats that. But to a certain extant. With that said torture should be justified for only that being. Otherwise, I dont think torture is a way to go. It leaves people bruetly injuried even killed. The water-board idea though is something that I would think gets your point across that you want something from them, and yet doesnt kill them. And thats understandable to me
I would define torture as repeated and severe physical or mental abuse of a person. It can be for the purpose of coercing the person being tortured to share information, or purely for the sake of causing pain to that person because of anger, hate, or a desire for vengeance. To be considered torture in my opinion, the abuse must meet a stanmdard of severity, whether it is physical or psychological. Simply insulting the person or punching them in the nose wouldn't qualify, for example, but more severe measures such as electric shocks or the use of thumbscrews definitely would. The abuse can be physical, such as amputation, electric shocks, beating, or exposure to things such as high or low temperatures. It can be mental, such as isolation or stripping of clothing. It can also involve depriving the person of something important such as sleep or food. I personally think torture is rarely justified. It is an evil act and in my opinion is only justified when the torturer needs extremely important information extremely urgently and there is no other course of action besides torture. This information would have to be necessary for resolving an immediate crisis. For example, if terrorists were about to bomb a building in a matter of hours and there was no other way to find out the location, then I would say it would be justified in a situation like that. However, there would still be restrictions. The torturers would not be able to use any methods that would cause lasting physical, mental, or emotional damage. Thus, acts of torture such as bashing the person's head against a wall, cutting body parts off, cutting or burning the person, putting them in isolation (not only because it can cause mental damage but also because it takes too long to be applicable in this situation), or other forms that might cause any kind of lasting (short-term and long-term) damage. Methods like waterboarding or loud music bombardment might be allowed. To sum up, the only context that torture should be used in should be to find out information about urgent high security situations, and even then there would be restrictions on the forms of torture allowed.
To me torture is any physical or mental abuse that inflects pain by any means on an individual. It can be used by some to gain information or revenge and even just for your own pleasure out of means of beliefs in religion, prejudices, or anything ethnically and morally different. Torture, in some situations, can be justified if and only if it is used not out of a petty feelings of revenge or your own prejudices or beliefs, but rather in order to receive information that could be useful in saving the lives of hundreds of people, protecting a nation, or the interrogation of any terrorist organization that poses a threat and could be solved with torture. Although torture is useful in certain situations the means of torture should be monitored. In the article Abu Zubaida said that he suffered many different means of torture that caused him to be affected by long term side effects from such medical problems like seizers and other injuries. In this situation the torture should not have been taken to this extend. I believe that torture should only be used to inflect pain of some sort that may cause short term effects, but never any life-threatening long term effects. This is where the line of torture should be drawn. It should be monitored by our government officials. Therefore, depending on the crime and the situation, torture can be justified to some means but it should not be used to cause permanent medical damages to a person. -Emily
To me, torture is the use of intimidation and violence, both mentally and physically on a person. According to Amnesty International, torture is severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental that is intentionally inflicted on a person in order to intimidate, punish or obtain information from someone. What is interesting is that Amnesty International also says that these actions are defined as torture even when sanctioned by a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. I think that is an important piece of information that I agree with. It is still considered torture since it causes harm to a person, even though the government agreed to it. The government agreeing to torture does not make the actions done to a person any less harmful, dangerous and violent. In a perfect world I would say that torture should never be justified. I cannot really specifically say whether or not I believe torture is justified because I have never been in a position to decide either way. My beliefs and morals make me want to say that our country should never torture anyone, and that all people deserve rights no matter who they are. However, in extreme circumstances, there is a grey area between what is acceptable and what is not. Therefore, I would have to say that in extreme situations I would be okay with our government using coercive measures to obtain information if it could save American lives. If our country is put in the position of protecting one individual terrorist’s rights against the rights and safety of innocent Americans, then I think torture is justified. However, I also think our country should try to pursue diplomatic routes to foreign countries, and then maybe torture would not be needed in the future.
Torture is physical and psychological pain that is inflicted on someone without the person’s ability to control it. I believe that people have different pain thresholds and therefore torture can be different for everyone. There are very rare occasions when I feel that torture may be acceptable to use. If you randomly find someone believed to be a criminal from an anonymous tip, torture should definitely not be used. If the person is known to be a criminal with highly valuable information (regarding important information such as citizens’ safety) then some torture may need to be used. Torture should only be used for short periods of times and no torture should be life threatening. Therefore I do not think the torture inflicted on Abu Zubaida is justified because continuously banging his head against the wall is life threatening. Before torture is ever used diplomacy should first be attempted. Torture should only be used as a last resort.
Torture is extreme psychological or physical pain inflicted on someone, which can be used as punishment or to extract information, a confession, etc. from him or her. I think that torture is both an unreliable and unjust method of obtaining information. Causing another human being pain, especially innocent people, is simply disgusting and violates the most basic universal human rights. In the case of using torture as punishment, what message is the government sending if they themselves are using are carrying actions that are morally wrong? Also, information gathered from torturing and interrogating suspects cannot be counted on as reliable. People will say or do anything that is asked of them to make the pain stop and to save themselves, as seen in the Salem witch trials, when women confess and give names of others, or in the book 1984. We can’t guarantee that anything we learn through torturing suspects is true. I believe that torture is very rarely justified, in extreme cases. For example, it could perhaps be justifiable if the detainee is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or if it is known that they have information and obtaining this intelligence would save other lives.
In my mind, torture is severely punishing some one in a way that inflicts lasting physical or mental harm. When I think of torture, I think of severe physical pain; however, I realize that the “pain” can be emotional as well. I would consider everything from water-boarding to sleep deprivation to be torture. I do not really think that torture is ever justified. However, I think that if a lot of people’s lives are in danger, then the torture of one person may be the only way to ensure the safety of many others. If there is a lot of evidence supporting that a particular person knows information that could save the lives of many people, then torture may be the only way to obtain this crucial information. I think it is very hard to determine what a person would need to do, or know, in order to be tortured though. Overall, I do not think that it is very humane and I would even agree that it is a violation to basic human rights. Torturing people, specifically foreign terrorists, probably causes more problems than it solves. After reading The Washington Post article, I realize that it just doesn’t seem like the ideal way to get information out of someone. Overall, I just wish that there wasn’t a need to torture people because I think that it can be very traumatic both physically and mentally, and I truly think that it could have a lasting effect on the victims. Therefore, torture should only be used if it is certain that the victim knows information that is essential to ensuring the safety of many other people.
Torture, in my definition, is exposing someone to "extreme" psychological, or physical stress for a extended duration of time for personal or communal gain. Simply put, when the government results to torture, it is extortion. Likewise, I do not personally agree, nor encourage the use of torture under any circumstance. I personally believe that exposing any humans to such debauchery directly contradicts our bill of rights, which protects us from cruel and unusual punishments; no one wants to be beaten nearly to death for information that if given would spell out exile or betrayal. Of course, lawyers presiding over the case would be able to find multiple loopholes and apply superseding clauses to the case; effectively justifying its cause, but torture in the end, without a doubt, is cruel. My personal belief, however, differs from my personal stance on torture. Many things in this world are cruel, examples such as war and poverty. Cruelness and injustice, however, is as much part of our society as justice and compassion. To achieve peace, war are fought, to escape poverty, one must step on, and above their peers to ensure their survival, and thus to achieve justice, injustice will be committed. Under the same principle, torture is a way to achieve justice. Its usage, if administered strictly, and directed for the greater good, can be justified. In the end, torture will never be the right thing to do, but sometimes it will be the necessary thing to do.
Defined legally from the United Nations convention on torture, torture is."any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.[1]." To me this definition is confusing because it says 'mental and physical pain' and does not include 'lawful sanctions.' Although i know it is possible to torture someone mentally, i believe that the definition of torture should mean physically harming someone in order to gain a confession or another objective.
I believe that the United States should not allow any kinds of physical torture. I say this because even though I did not vote for John McCain, he was a captive and was tortured and for someone to be in that situation and come out and say that it is not effective and not right means a lot. I don't personally know anyone who has been in a situation like him, and I don't believe in 'an eye for an eye,' which is why i trust his judgement.
The problem with this definition is that it allows for, basically, legal torture. Where we draw the line on that is tough to say.
Torture to me is when someone inflicts pain on to someone who is unable to react and defend themselves. Torture can be both physical and emotional. To me torture is something that one uses to gain information and performs is it onto someone who is in capable of taking charge. At the same time I feel that torture is when the pain or the activity is extremely crucial such as shocking the person, putting them through water, giving them a sensation of drowning. These types of torture should be unacceptable and prohibited. Depriving someone of sleep and yelling at them or not feeding them for sometime are still a bit acceptable because they are not as extreme. I fee that when officials do not have any other option they resort to torture and in some cases it is a must. I also feel that when performing intensive and extreme forms of torture the officials should have full proof that the person they are torturing deserves it and is holding valuable information. I think without proper proof no one should go through the torture. For some particular cases torture is justified when a whole bunch of people are at stake. At the same time I also feel that torture actually might effect the information that comes out of someone’s mouth and they might just say whatever gets them away from the torture. So in my opinion torture should only be applied to those who we know withhold information and the one we are on hundred percent sure of, because otherwise torture only brings pain and agony to an innocent person’s life.
To me torture is when you phsically or mentally abuse a person to obtane information that the person may know. The information could do with one person or how the world/country may be in trouble. The real definition of torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. I think that in some situations torture is justified. It also depends on the person. I think that it is justified when the person holding the information that may indanger one or many people. It is also justified that person has tortured another person for no reason i think that they should feel the pain they have inflicted on that previous person.
Torture is the act of excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. In my opinion, I would say that torture is the act of verbal, metal, and/or physical abuse, just to obtain information or gain revenge on a person. I think that in some cases torture can be justified, but only when it’s necessary. If you’re in need of information about a very serious topic, then yes, you may torture the person, but if that person still doesn’t spill out that information you need, I don’t see why you would continue the torture on the person, it’s just a waste of your time. But say that you knew there was going to be a big high school party, with alcoholic beverages, that upcoming weekend; you can’t just torture the students to tell you where it is going to be held at. You need to be reasonable when wanting to torture a person. So with saying this, I believe that torture should only be used with only a serious crime or when you need very important information on a serious topic that could cause major problems for many other people in the world.
Torture is defined in the dictionary as “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.” This pain can be mental or emotional pain. I think that torture is only justified when it is necessary for vital information. It should never be used for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. When we use torture to get information from terrorists, it is justified. The reports of the physical and psychological brutality inside CIA “black site” prisons is justified because these terrorists may have vital information that will help save U.S. troops and American civilians. Some types of torture that was used during these interrogations were beatings, dousing with cold water, and being slammed headfirst into walls. Water boarding, being exposed to cold temperatures and sleep deprivation were used in between the interrogations. This torture is justified because these terrorists may have useful information for our generals, keeping the United States safe.
This is an issue i have never heard of before. This is almost shocking to me and although i believe this happens i think what surprises me the most is that it is in the Unites States. However, the more i think about it I do not completely disagree with the use of torture in order to get needed information, it is okay if the person is given the opportunity to cooperate and will not budge than it may be necessary. For example if the information that the captive is with holding will save other people or is vital for something than torture is completely necessary. However, torture out of nothing other than enjoyment or nothing more than anger and hatred is unacceptable. If there is a purpose for the torture I do agree that it can be used, but it should only be used to get something out of a person if every other way has failed.
Torture is the process of causing a captive to experience physical or psychological distress. It is also a topic that has in recent years become extremely controversial. Many feel that the use of torture in interrogation is cruel, over zealous, and inhumane, and in most circumstances I would agree with that statement. The pain both emotional and physical that torture inflicts on people is unimaginable and should be avoided if at all possible. However those who limit their opinions to such a view on torture neglect to take into account the situations in which truly dangerous individuals have knowledge that could save thousands of lives, knowledge which these dangerous individuals seldom give to authorities when normal interrogation techniques are implemented. It is with these individuals that torture is necessary. It is with the individuals who threaten millions of lives by with holding essential information in normal interrogation proceedings that torture must be implemented. Although this sounds overly harsh, I am not saying that torture should be used on all suspected terrorists. I am simply stating that torture should be used only as a last resort and when authorities know with absolute certainty that the individual in question is threatening the lives of many by withholding information. In this case, the danger and threat to over-all society in my opinion out weighs the rights of the detainee in question and action must be taken to preserve the wellbeing of the society the prisoner’s silence threatens. Even in situations such as these, however, interrogators can not simply torture a prisoner to death in an attempt to get them to talk. It is my belief that interrogators and their methods should be closely supervised to ensure that they do not take their interrogation techniques too far. Although this in a sense goes against the concept of torture, it is my belief that if torture is to be used on extremely high priority prisoners, guidelines as to who should be subject to such interrogation techniques, what techniques are used, and the degree to which they can be used should be closely regulated and reviewed to ensure interrogators don’t abuse their positions of power of prisoners. In conclusion, I feel that although torture should be avoided at all costs, in some very extreme and rare cases (in which the threat to society is both very apparent and severe) it is required to ensure that society is kept safe from crimes that could threaten thousands of lives, and in these very rare cases, the interrogation techniques need to be closely supervised by an or many officials and deemed necessary by an impartial judge or authority to ensure that the interrogators do not take their interrogation too far.
Torture is physical and/or psychological pain that someone causes another person. Honestly I didnt belive in torture until we talked about it in class. I just thought of it as terrible pain that one person inflicts on another to get what they need. Once I heard what other people said my opinion changed. I think it is acceptable when many innocent lives can be saved. If a person is withholding information when quick action needs to be taken torture may be inflicted so that the person gives up and a group of people are saved. I think torture is only justified in extreme situations and should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Only certain kinds of torture should be used as well. The water board method is an acceptable example. The person feels as though they are drowning but really no harm is being done because their lungs cant fill if they are upside down.
Torture is the infliction of intense anguish or pain on the body (physical) or the mind (psychological). It is either done for punishment, sick pleasure, or in this case to gain pertinent information. I tend to correlate torture only with extreme physical pain carried out a prisoner or such until they relent to say something the torturer wants to hear. By this definition, I believe torture is justified if what is gained from torturing this one person will save many lives in the near future (Like a plan to bomb an area, where many innocent lives would be taken). It is also sometimes justified as punishment if the crime of the person is really great and perhaps caused the suffering of others. It seems right that he should have to feel the same sort of pain he inflicted. However, I believe there’s usually much better ways to punish criminals such repaying the people they affected with their time. Forcing someone to devote their life to a good cause is much more likely to turn them around then a couple days of pain and suffering. Torture is most clearly not justified when someone is doing it simply because they delight in being cruel and like to see the other person suffer. For example, prisoners of war who don’t know any information, but are tortured anyway just because the enemy takes pleasure in seeing their captives suffer.
Torture can be defined as pain or anguish caused to a person physically or psychologically. This pain can be very extreme especially in intense situations. Torture can include, as said in the article, water boarding, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, and more. Although the show 24 is not real, there can be many parallels made to real life. In 24, the main character Jack Bauer uses torture to receive vital information about terrorist attacks. I think that torture can be justified in situations like in that show. If our country is in danger and we need information from a captured terrorist, I think that torture can be used. In the show, because of Jack Bauer's decision to torture his enemies many lives are saved. This can also be true in the real world, if many American lives are in danger, torture can be justified.
I believe torture is defined as inflicting pain upon someone for a certain purpose. I also believe that torture is justified when an American citizen's life is in danger. In class we were saying that we believed it was only okay to use torture if alot of American's lives were in jeopardy, however I feel that if someone knows something that can help protect just one person, we should use all means necessary to get that information. The concept of waterboarding is probably the most effective use of torture, in that the person being tortured really cannot die. I think that this method is the best to be used until that person gives us the information.
Torture is the act of inflicting physical or mental pain on a person. Throughout history, torture has been used to try and coerce people into releasing information they would not normally give of their own will. In relation to the international law, the Geneva Convention ruled that torture is not allowed to be used by countries as a method of prying desired information from prisoners. I believe that the use of torture is never justified. No matter the war, the cause, or the side, torture is not a successful or reliable method. People are now trained to resist torture in order to always keep prized information a secret. In addition, simply because someone might break and give an answer after torture does not necessarily mean what they say is true. Most importantly, torture is an immoral method. Especially in the war on terror, inflicting pain in those we take as prisoners is not the right solution. Our countries solution to a war should not be so low that it is detained from the public and too much of a secret to be shared with the people.
Torture defined in the dictionary is to cause extreme physical or mental pain. I agree with this definition and I also think that the pain would have to continue for an extended time period in order for it to be classified as "torture". I believe that in some cases torture can be justified depending on the seriousness of the crime committed and the reason behind the crime. For example the men who killed the Petits tortured them and I believe that people like that deserve to feel the pain that they caused others for no reason at all.
Torture is a touchy subject. Right from the start though I can tell you that under the correct circumstances I believe that torture is acceptable. Now before you start to ask yourself, what circumstances is he talking about, let me explain. I am referring to issues that relate to the safety and security of this great nation and her people. So for instance someone says that there is a bomb stashed away in an airport, but won’t disclose where it is. Well I am gonna expect his ass to get beat until he spills the information. But on the other hand, if someone gets a driving ticket or some kind of misdemeanor such as this, then torture as to why it happened is completely out of line. So really I think it only applies to situations where people’s lives are at great risk.
Torture is defined as inflicting pain upon a person either physically or psychologically for a certain purpose; either done for punishment, certain kinds of pleasure, or in this case to gain pertinent information. In my thoughts I attach the word torture with the situation of a prisoner being tortured so the torturer can gain valuable information. There are many ways of torture and all are very cruel and unjust, I feel that it is not right to torture unless under EXTREMELY extenuating circumstances. Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions and therefore it is illegal to torture any prisoner. Some people feel that it is right to torture even though it is prohibited but that is like saying that it is ok to steal even though it is illegal. Torture does not even always work, most times the prisoner has been trained and resists the torture and the information is not told. This defeats the purpose of torture in terms of interrogation and it almost seems as if the torture is done solely to punish the prisoner because of his or her affiliation or for the pleasure of the interrogator. In some cases the prisoner might not even know the information that they are being tortured for, so therefore the torture is useless and unnecessary.
I admit that in some cases a minimal amount of torture may be completely and utterly necessary in order to protect millions of lives but it can only be done if it is obvious the prisoner knows the information and it can not be done for extended periods of time like in the article we read. So in the large majority of cases I feel as if torture is not necessary or humane but in a small number it can be used to protect an overwhelming number of people.
Torture, as of the Geneva Convention, is considered illegal as a method of interrogation. As the article describes, the outcome of the Geneva Convention is being completely disregarded by the CIA as torture continues to be used. Although there have been cases where torture is justified, I don’t believe it should be used on prisoners. Some of the so called “prisoners” may just be innocent people who seem like they could be a terrorist. These innocent people are then being tortured for days, months, even years until they confess something useful to the CIA when they had nothing to confess in the first place. I believe the CIA needs to be 100% certain that the person they captured endangered the lives of U.S. citizens or knows something about someone who does.
Torture is the act of inflicting pain as a punishment or simply to get information from a person. For example if somebody has information that is needed for the saftey of a large amount of people you need to do whatever it takes to get it. This is when i think torture is completely necessary. I dont think torture is justified when you just do it to cause harm to somebody for no reason whatsoever, this is were its not necessary. Torture is also psycological pain, the person inflicting the pain might just want to humiliate the person, this also isnt necessary.
Torture is the act of harming someone for the entertainment of others or for the reason of trying to obtain important information. I think that torture can be used as a last form of action towards a person who will not give information. I think that there must be guidelines as to how far a torturer can torture. Therefore I believe that torturing can be justified depending on the situation. If the torturing could save others' lives then it could be justified.
Torture is cruel and immoral punishment of an individual. It can go on for days or weeks at a time and can be mental, like sleep deprivation, or physical, like beating, but either way if one person is intentionally harming another person it is considered torture. Torture is justified if the reason for torture is legitimate. If someone is torturing someone else because they committed a simple crime, torture is not justified. If someone is torturing someone else because they believe they know something that will help them solve a nationwide crisis like terrorism, torture is justified. Torture is immoral and should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary.
Please excuse this again. Google didn't want to recognize my account again.
I believe torture is forcing someone to feel physical or psychological pain in order to extract information from them, or get something the torturer wants. In my opinion, torture is justified only in certain situations. Congress could perhaps come together and set rules for when torture is allowable, and only then should it be used. In the case of the article for instance, where the person being tortured is a terrorist, they may know of a plan that we need information on to save thousands of lives. Methods of torture should also be reviewed, and some banned or only allowed under circumstances. I think torture, and it's methods, is justified under certain circumstances.
Torture to me is any inhumane physical or psychological treatment of prisoners. I personally feel that in some cases torture is justified. Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to set a standard to help judge whether it was justified. This means that to effectively use torture to get information there will be a quick decision made by the person in charge. There may not be time to bring the case before a judge so while people have to be held to some level of accountability, they also have to be allowed to act quickly and effectively.
Torture is the infliction of pain, either mental or physical, which is used as means of coercion, punishment, or even “pleasure.” This is exactly how I define torture, so I don’t feel there is a huge potential for a gray area. I think 99.99% of the time, torture is not justifiable. I don’t believe that what has gone on in the “black site” prisons is legal, and especially is immoral. I’m sure hypothetical situations could be created in which torture would be the only solution; however, some other interrogation techniques could prove to be more effective. It’s not worth the reputation of the U.S. to use torture to get information easily.
Torture is the infliction of both physical and mental pain and agony in order to punish, or coerce. I believe in some situations that torture is justified. When a situation like 9/11 takes place, it is absolutely horrendous what happened to many Americans and I believe that the officials have every right to do every action possible to stop it and get to the bottom of the attacks. The prisoners were clearly warned of the punishments and torture before any of them occurred. When your dealing with people like the senior al-Qaeda captives, it is an extremely different situation then when you’re dealing with one man who shot one person. These men were responsible for thousands of deaths in multiple attacks. It was the government’s responsibility to do whatever was needed to protect the citizens of the United States from future attacks from these terrorists. The treatment may seem unfair to some, but when you’re looking at the big picture, simulating drowning on one terrorist that in the end may save thousands of lives, it is worth it. If terrorists choose to attack the United States, they deserve every possible torture to even begin to feel the pain of every person they killed, as well as the family members of those victims involved. I believe torture is justified in extreme cases, but not for the every day criminals.
I think that torture can be described as harmful actions put upon someone by someone else. The reason for the torture could be punishment or to get the person to fess up to a wrong doing. I believe that torture should not be used for no reason at all, but under certain circumstances, I advise it. I think that torture is okay to be used against someone who has tortured somebody else for no reason. I don't understand how someone can physically or mentally torture someone else because they want to. I know that torture is commonly used to figure out important stuff, usually involing foreign issues. I think that in certain cases this can be justified. I think torture can be used if the person will not willingly admit to things, but torture should definitely not be first initiative.
Torture is the practice of inflicting pain on someone to either get something out of them or the pleasure of dispensing pain on to someone. Torture does not always have to be done physically it can also be done mentally. When you see on the news people that are mass murders, and the judge sentences them to a life in jail I think they shouldn’t get of that easy they should be put through the suffering they put the “person” through when they killed them. With the issue of 9/11 where there were innocent lives taken away I belive they have every right to torture him (by being tied around the neck and slammed into a wall). This does sound malicious but this is a man who did not take out three people’s lives but took out thousands. American’s should not think this is wrong, when Alkita is doing this to our captive soldiers as well. Torture yes is a horrible thing but when it is justified with a reasonable cause it is necessary.
To me, torture is any way of obtaining an object, information or anything else through inflicting physical pain to the victim. I also consider it to be an ongoing process that must happen over a long period of time. Psychological torture is through the means of brainwashing or humiliation. I believe that torture can be justified, but only in a small number of cases. For example, if we capture someone who is believed to be linked to a threat to the U.S., torture can be justified to a certain extent. Permanent damage shouldn't be justified under any circumstances, no matter how dangerous the person may be. Overall, I believe that their are other ways to obtain vital information, but torture can be justified in a very small amount of instances.
Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain physically or mentally, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. I feel that torture should be justified in the extreme cases such as extracting key information from a terrorist or a known serious criminal. I believe that torture should be used to gain information and extract information from the extreme criminals. I feel that there would be no point to torture an individual for punishment. I also feel that if the case had to deal with someone who was a low time criminal for doing something that did not affect national security than torturing that person for information would be pointless. I also believe that there must be some type of proof in order for a person to be tortured and that that person would have to have important information in order for that person to be tortured.
I believe that torture can be defined as significant intended physical and/or psychological harm on an isolated, restrained individual, for a purpose. I believe that certain circumstances absolutely justify the use of torture. Basically, if there is probable belief that a person in question knows information that could help save or prevent injury to some or many other people, I believe that torture should be employed. Although certain forms, particularly those that leave permanent damage, should never or highly rarely be employed, less dangerous and malicious methods can be essential life saving techniques. To me, the pain and suffering of an uncooperative criminal is much less significant than the lives of many innocent everyday people.
Torture is the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain or suffering by or with the consent of the state authorities for a specific purpose. To me torture doesn't have to create severe pain, but has to leave a mental or physical mark. Torture is justified only if there is no other way to get the information. Also you need evidence that the person up for torture has partaken in an act of terror.
I believe the concept of defining torture is difficult, because the term is opinionated. The connotation of torture is different, according to the person who is acting upon it, and the victim. In my own words, in favor of the victim, I believe torture is causing physical/ mental harm to the victim repeatedly, even though the victim tells you to stop. I believe torture is justified, but only when there is proof that the victim is guilty of something. Like, for example, if there is a murder, and proof has been found that 'person A' had something to do with the crime, then authorities can then use methods of torture to interrogate the suspect. But, they have to be completely sure that 'Person A' had something to do with it. If later the authorities found out that 'Person A' actually had nothing to do with the crime, i believe 'Person A' has the right to sue the government for their actions.
I think that torture is using physical and mental abuse to make someone feel as thoguh they have to do something. The article talks about torture being used as an interrogation method on prisoners. I believe that that does not justify the use of torute. If torture is a the only last resort method of gaining information from someone then it should be a type that leaves no perminant damage to the person. Torture to me is almost never justified because there are many more ways of getting things done.
In my opinion, torture is an act against someones own will in order to retrieve information from them. I think torture is always justified when it comes to homeland security because if someone was doing something bad enough to have information like that, than they should be painfully tortured until they speak the truth. I don't care what anybody says, when our pow's were being held by the enemy, most were not treated well. Torture these people until they tell us what we need to know. I also believe that regardless of what anyone thinks of torture, it will still be used because there is nothing more useful when it comes to gaining information from informants.
Torture is either physical or mental pain, that has the person being tortured is either think he is dying or in extreme pain. it can be an excellent tool to extract information especially from verbal integration does not seam affective. but it is morally wrong and does not right even under acts of terrorism.
I define torture as continuous assault on a person over time in order to receive information. It may also be done for pleasure. Torture does not always include physical pain, but it includes pain mentally. Someone may talk to a victim in a harsh manner, and this victim may become mentally damaged by it. Torture is meant to make a victim or an accused criminal feel under pressure, extremely uncomfortable and scared. Torture can be justified, but only under certain conditions. If someone is accused of a certain crime, they should not be tortured unless they explain to the police that they did not commit the crime. As long as they have details to support the fact that they are innocent, they should not be tortured. If they refuse to say anything and the police still feel as though this person committed a crime, the person can be tortured until he or she gives an explanation of what they really did.
To me, torture is a method of making someone feel uncomfortable or feel pain, either physically or mentally. Torture can be used for information or to some people it is used for their own pleasure. I think that using torture to gather information is in no way necessary. I strongly believe that violence only provokes more violence. Al Qaeda must hate America even more because of the torture we are using on their imprisoned members. I believe the best way to gather information from these people is to treat them like normal human beings and use verbal and psychological methods of interrogation instead of physical and violent methods.
Torture is any physical or mental harm to a person to get them to do something or say something they don't want to do or say. I think there are times when torture is necessary but only in cases where mass amounts of people would be injured or killed as a result. There are certain types of torture that are never necessary such as water boarding. I feel that officials take torture to extremes that are unnecessary and inhumane.
52 comments:
Torture to me is when you terrorize someone until they say something or they do something to get you to stop, or when you cause physical pain or abuse to someone. I think that at sometimes there is a point where you can torture someone but it would have to be to a certain extant. Like that one method with the water-board, i think that would be a reasonable way but nothing more than that.
I believe torture is physical and psychological pain that is ongoing until the torturer feels as if you've had enough. Physical pain as in a beating, or some cruel way to cause your body harm. Psychologically is basically meaning emotionally hurting you by possibly causing public humiliation. No, not often do you see this but yes it would hurt someone emotionally. Torture is justified, depending on what that person did. If it's something not as bad, then no that person does not deserve it. Where as if the crime was one which may have cost many peoples lives, then yes. Torture can be used to a certain extent. If you're using it to interrogate someone, and that person still does not give you information after you've tortured them countless times, then there is no point. I would say just kill them since they wouldn't even give out information, even if being close to dead.
Torture should be used as a severe punishment, in which it is. In that case it makes it most of the time justified (again depending on the crime).
I think that for harmful actions done unto others to be considered torture, the person must be doing the act of cruelty for their satisfaction, whether that satisfaction be merely from seeing someone go through a lot of pain or whether their satisfaction is obtaining private government information from people who have terrorized our country in order to be recognized for doing their job well. If the person is causing harm to another for an extended period of time, yet is doing it for the good of the person undergoing the pain, then I do not think it should be considered torture. For example, teachers forcing students to take difficult exams, although it may seem like torture, are doing it for the betterment of the students' knowledge. I do not believe torture can ever be justified, because my definition of torture is the pain you are inflicting on others for selfish reasons. Making others go through pain can be justified, so long as the person is trying to do their best for the victim, but I do not think torture can ever be justified.
Tourture-noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
This is the dictionary definition of the word, the only thing that I would add to this definition is that the pain can be both phsyical and mental.In certain cases I believe that torture is justified. If you are aware that this person has information and just not telling you then you should. If you got an anyomous tip that this guy was bad, but had no evidence I think it would be wrong to do something extemeley harsh to this person. You have to know for sure before you torture them. In some instances torture is the right wya to go about getting information.
Torture is intentionally inflicting psychological, emotional, and physical pain in order to obtain information and in some cases to punish those who have committed a crime. For me, I feel that it is necessary to torture someone if it means that the information you are intending to receive will save lives. Important information pertaining to national security and in time of war to receive war intelligence are reasonable grounds to torture the enemy. That would only be the justifiable grounds for torture, you cannot just torture someone who will not tell you who stole a bag of potato chips in the lunch line. Also, some people who commit atrocious crimes like murders should have the option to be convicted to death by torture, that use to be the electric chair. But, the only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional considering it's cruel and unusual punishment.
The dictionary definition of torture, according to dictionary.com is: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. This definition however, is lacking the emotional baggage associated with continual fear and torment. Torture, in my opinion, is the act of continual verbal, physical or emotional abuse in order to gain information, revenge, or for racial, religious or ethnic prejudices. There is no excuse or reason that torture is ever justified; torture scars victims for life and only generates more hate towards the nation responsible. Terror suspects often do not have enough evidence against them for a conviction, which increases the desire to torture. Those who are innocent can never be repaid or compensated for their experience, nor can those who are guilty be deemed a terrorist when they themselves have been a victim of terror. Just like the law forbids murdering those who have murdered or stealing from those who have stolen, the law should forbid torturing anyone- terror suspect or not.
In class, the issue of nuclear warfare was discussed. Is it okay to torture someone at the expense of saving thousands of others? Originally I said no. However, when situations are this dire, when the lives of millions will be affected worldwide and future generations are at risk of being harmed, I can understand why some would jump to torture. Yet, I still believe there are other, moral ways to get information from a terror suspect. I don’t know what these ways are, but I hope they exist, because I feel torturing someone is just as bad as whatever the suspect in question has committed or intends to commit. Plus, one can never be certain that the torture will solve any problems or get any answers; like the case of Abu Zubaida discussed in the Washington Post article. Zubaida was held and tortured daily, yet, what intelligence has the United States gained? September 11th has already occurred, and no amount of torture can ever change the past. These very acts of torture and the unwillingness to cooperate with the rest of the world are partially responsible for the state of crisis the world currently endures. Ending torture tactics is one of the first steps to world peace, and needs to occur before terrorism can be halted and reversed.
I believe torture is the use of continued abuse against a considered enemy in order to attain information or just for their own pleasure. The abuse can include anything from harsh conditions, restraint on their body, waterbarding, physical abuse or simply the loss of key human rights. I do believe that the use of torture is justified, but only up to an extent. Use of torture during interrogation of a very serious situation in which mass amounts of innocent people are in danger I believe is justified. However I do not believe in seriously harmful physical abuse as done to Abu Zubaida, such as being tied at the neck and slammed into a wall. It was said that Zubaida suffered serious after effects (seizures). Torture, I believe, is justified if the abuse only has lasting short term effects, not long term effects in which the person is disabled. Although I say torture can be justified in some situations, it should stay only a serious punishment and only used when completely necessary to obtain information.
I think torture is the idea of having a person put through both mental and/or physical abuse. And Im not all for it but if theirs evidence that someone deserves it, than thats that. But to a certain extant. With that said torture should be justified for only that being. Otherwise, I dont think torture is a way to go. It leaves people bruetly injuried even killed. The water-board idea though is something that I would think gets your point across that you want something from them, and yet doesnt kill them. And thats understandable to me
I would define torture as repeated and severe physical or mental abuse of a person. It can be for the purpose of coercing the person being tortured to share information, or purely for the sake of causing pain to that person because of anger, hate, or a desire for vengeance. To be considered torture in my opinion, the abuse must meet a stanmdard of severity, whether it is physical or psychological. Simply insulting the person or punching them in the nose wouldn't qualify, for example, but more severe measures such as electric shocks or the use of thumbscrews definitely would. The abuse can be physical, such as amputation, electric shocks, beating, or exposure to things such as high or low temperatures. It can be mental, such as isolation or stripping of clothing. It can also involve depriving the person of something important such as sleep or food.
I personally think torture is rarely justified. It is an evil act and in my opinion is only justified when the torturer needs extremely important information extremely urgently and there is no other course of action besides torture. This information would have to be necessary for resolving an immediate crisis. For example, if terrorists were about to bomb a building in a matter of hours and there was no other way to find out the location, then I would say it would be justified in a situation like that. However, there would still be restrictions. The torturers would not be able to use any methods that would cause lasting physical, mental, or emotional damage. Thus, acts of torture such as bashing the person's head against a wall, cutting body parts off, cutting or burning the person, putting them in isolation (not only because it can cause mental damage but also because it takes too long to be applicable in this situation), or other forms that might cause any kind of lasting (short-term and long-term) damage. Methods like waterboarding or loud music bombardment might be allowed. To sum up, the only context that torture should be used in should be to find out information about urgent high security situations, and even then there would be restrictions on the forms of torture allowed.
To me torture is any physical or mental abuse that inflects pain by any means on an individual. It can be used by some to gain information or revenge and even just for your own pleasure out of means of beliefs in religion, prejudices, or anything ethnically and morally different. Torture, in some situations, can be justified if and only if it is used not out of a petty feelings of revenge or your own prejudices or beliefs, but rather in order to receive information that could be useful in saving the lives of hundreds of people, protecting a nation, or the interrogation of any terrorist organization that poses a threat and could be solved with torture. Although torture is useful in certain situations the means of torture should be monitored. In the article Abu Zubaida said that he suffered many different means of torture that caused him to be affected by long term side effects from such medical problems like seizers and other injuries. In this situation the torture should not have been taken to this extend. I believe that torture should only be used to inflect pain of some sort that may cause short term effects, but never any life-threatening long term effects. This is where the line of torture should be drawn. It should be monitored by our government officials. Therefore, depending on the crime and the situation, torture can be justified to some means but it should not be used to cause permanent medical damages to a person.
-Emily
To me, torture is the use of intimidation and violence, both mentally and physically on a person. According to Amnesty International, torture is severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental that is intentionally inflicted on a person in order to intimidate, punish or obtain information from someone. What is interesting is that Amnesty International also says that these actions are defined as torture even when sanctioned by a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. I think that is an important piece of information that I agree with. It is still considered torture since it causes harm to a person, even though the government agreed to it. The government agreeing to torture does not make the actions done to a person any less harmful, dangerous and violent. In a perfect world I would say that torture should never be justified. I cannot really specifically say whether or not I believe torture is justified because I have never been in a position to decide either way. My beliefs and morals make me want to say that our country should never torture anyone, and that all people deserve rights no matter who they are. However, in extreme circumstances, there is a grey area between what is acceptable and what is not. Therefore, I would have to say that in extreme situations I would be okay with our government using coercive measures to obtain information if it could save American lives. If our country is put in the position of protecting one individual terrorist’s rights against the rights and safety of innocent Americans, then I think torture is justified. However, I also think our country should try to pursue diplomatic routes to foreign countries, and then maybe torture would not be needed in the future.
Torture is physical and psychological pain that is inflicted on someone without the person’s ability to control it. I believe that people have different pain thresholds and therefore torture can be different for everyone. There are very rare occasions when I feel that torture may be acceptable to use. If you randomly find someone believed to be a criminal from an anonymous tip, torture should definitely not be used. If the person is known to be a criminal with highly valuable information (regarding important information such as citizens’ safety) then some torture may need to be used. Torture should only be used for short periods of times and no torture should be life threatening. Therefore I do not think the torture inflicted on Abu Zubaida is justified because continuously banging his head against the wall is life threatening. Before torture is ever used diplomacy should first be attempted. Torture should only be used as a last resort.
Torture is extreme psychological or physical pain inflicted on someone, which can be used as punishment or to extract information, a confession, etc. from him or her. I think that torture is both an unreliable and unjust method of obtaining information. Causing another human being pain, especially innocent people, is simply disgusting and violates the most basic universal human rights. In the case of using torture as punishment, what message is the government sending if they themselves are using are carrying actions that are morally wrong? Also, information gathered from torturing and interrogating suspects cannot be counted on as reliable. People will say or do anything that is asked of them to make the pain stop and to save themselves, as seen in the Salem witch trials, when women confess and give names of others, or in the book 1984. We can’t guarantee that anything we learn through torturing suspects is true. I believe that torture is very rarely justified, in extreme cases. For example, it could perhaps be justifiable if the detainee is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or if it is known that they have information and obtaining this intelligence would save other lives.
In my mind, torture is severely punishing some one in a way that inflicts lasting physical or mental harm. When I think of torture, I think of severe physical pain; however, I realize that the “pain” can be emotional as well. I would consider everything from water-boarding to sleep deprivation to be torture. I do not really think that torture is ever justified. However, I think that if a lot of people’s lives are in danger, then the torture of one person may be the only way to ensure the safety of many others. If there is a lot of evidence supporting that a particular person knows information that could save the lives of many people, then torture may be the only way to obtain this crucial information. I think it is very hard to determine what a person would need to do, or know, in order to be tortured though. Overall, I do not think that it is very humane and I would even agree that it is a violation to basic human rights. Torturing people, specifically foreign terrorists, probably causes more problems than it solves. After reading The Washington Post article, I realize that it just doesn’t seem like the ideal way to get information out of someone. Overall, I just wish that there wasn’t a need to torture people because I think that it can be very traumatic both physically and mentally, and I truly think that it could have a lasting effect on the victims. Therefore, torture should only be used if it is certain that the victim knows information that is essential to ensuring the safety of many other people.
Torture, in my definition, is exposing someone to "extreme" psychological, or physical stress for a extended duration of time for personal or communal gain. Simply put, when the government results to torture, it is extortion. Likewise, I do not personally agree, nor encourage the use of torture under any circumstance. I personally believe that exposing any humans to such debauchery directly contradicts our bill of rights, which protects us from cruel and unusual punishments; no one wants to be beaten nearly to death for information that if given would spell out exile or betrayal. Of course, lawyers presiding over the case would be able to find multiple loopholes and apply superseding clauses to the case; effectively justifying its cause, but torture in the end, without a doubt, is cruel. My personal belief, however, differs from my personal stance on torture. Many things in this world are cruel, examples such as war and poverty. Cruelness and injustice, however, is as much part of our society as justice and compassion. To achieve peace, war are fought, to escape poverty, one must step on, and above their peers to ensure their survival, and thus to achieve justice, injustice will be committed. Under the same principle, torture is a way to achieve justice. Its usage, if administered strictly, and directed for the greater good, can be justified. In the end, torture will never be the right thing to do, but sometimes it will be the necessary thing to do.
Defined legally from the United Nations convention on torture, torture is."any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.[1]." To me this definition is confusing because it says 'mental and physical pain' and does not include 'lawful sanctions.' Although i know it is possible to torture someone mentally, i believe that the definition of torture should mean physically harming someone in order to gain a confession or another objective.
I believe that the United States should not allow any kinds of physical torture. I say this because even though I did not vote for John McCain, he was a captive and was tortured and for someone to be in that situation and come out and say that it is not effective and not right means a lot. I don't personally know anyone who has been in a situation like him, and I don't believe in 'an eye for an eye,' which is why i trust his judgement.
The problem with this definition is that it allows for, basically, legal torture. Where we draw the line on that is tough to say.
Torture to me is when someone inflicts pain on to someone who is unable to react and defend themselves. Torture can be both physical and emotional. To me torture is something that one uses to gain information and performs is it onto someone who is in capable of taking charge. At the same time I feel that torture is when the pain or the activity is extremely crucial such as shocking the person, putting them through water, giving them a sensation of drowning. These types of torture should be unacceptable and prohibited. Depriving someone of sleep and yelling at them or not feeding them for sometime are still a bit acceptable because they are not as extreme. I fee that when officials do not have any other option they resort to torture and in some cases it is a must. I also feel that when performing intensive and extreme forms of torture the officials should have full proof that the person they are torturing deserves it and is holding valuable information. I think without proper proof no one should go through the torture. For some particular cases torture is justified when a whole bunch of people are at stake. At the same time I also feel that torture actually might effect the information that comes out of someone’s mouth and they might just say whatever gets them away from the torture. So in my opinion torture should only be applied to those who we know withhold information and the one we are on hundred percent sure of, because otherwise torture only brings pain and agony to an innocent person’s life.
To me torture is when you phsically or mentally abuse a person to obtane information that the person may know. The information could do with one person or how the world/country may be in trouble. The real definition of torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. I think that in some situations torture is justified. It also depends on the person. I think that it is justified when the person holding the information that may indanger one or many people. It is also justified that person has tortured another person for no reason i think that they should feel the pain they have inflicted on that previous person.
Torture is the act of excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. In my opinion, I would say that torture is the act of verbal, metal, and/or physical abuse, just to obtain information or gain revenge on a person. I think that in some cases torture can be justified, but only when it’s necessary. If you’re in need of information about a very serious topic, then yes, you may torture the person, but if that person still doesn’t spill out that information you need, I don’t see why you would continue the torture on the person, it’s just a waste of your time. But say that you knew there was going to be a big high school party, with alcoholic beverages, that upcoming weekend; you can’t just torture the students to tell you where it is going to be held at. You need to be reasonable when wanting to torture a person. So with saying this, I believe that torture should only be used with only a serious crime or when you need very important information on a serious topic that could cause major problems for many other people in the world.
Torture is defined in the dictionary as “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.” This pain can be mental or emotional pain. I think that torture is only justified when it is necessary for vital information. It should never be used for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. When we use torture to get information from terrorists, it is justified. The reports of the physical and psychological brutality inside CIA “black site” prisons is justified because these terrorists may have vital information that will help save U.S. troops and American civilians. Some types of torture that was used during these interrogations were beatings, dousing with cold water, and being slammed headfirst into walls. Water boarding, being exposed to cold temperatures and sleep deprivation were used in between the interrogations. This torture is justified because these terrorists may have useful information for our generals, keeping the United States safe.
This is an issue i have never heard of before. This is almost shocking to me and although i believe this happens i think what surprises me the most is that it is in the Unites States. However, the more i think about it I do not completely disagree with the use of torture in order to get needed information, it is okay if the person is given the opportunity to cooperate and will not budge than it may be necessary. For example if the information that the captive is with holding will save other people or is vital for something than torture is completely necessary. However, torture out of nothing other than enjoyment or nothing more than anger and hatred is unacceptable. If there is a purpose for the torture I do agree that it can be used, but it should only be used to get something out of a person if every other way has failed.
Torture is the process of causing a captive to experience physical or psychological distress. It is also a topic that has in recent years become extremely controversial. Many feel that the use of torture in interrogation is cruel, over zealous, and inhumane, and in most circumstances I would agree with that statement. The pain both emotional and physical that torture inflicts on people is unimaginable and should be avoided if at all possible. However those who limit their opinions to such a view on torture neglect to take into account the situations in which truly dangerous individuals have knowledge that could save thousands of lives, knowledge which these dangerous individuals seldom give to authorities when normal interrogation techniques are implemented. It is with these individuals that torture is necessary. It is with the individuals who threaten millions of lives by with holding essential information in normal interrogation proceedings that torture must be implemented. Although this sounds overly harsh, I am not saying that torture should be used on all suspected terrorists. I am simply stating that torture should be used only as a last resort and when authorities know with absolute certainty that the individual in question is threatening the lives of many by withholding information. In this case, the danger and threat to over-all society in my opinion out weighs the rights of the detainee in question and action must be taken to preserve the wellbeing of the society the prisoner’s silence threatens. Even in situations such as these, however, interrogators can not simply torture a prisoner to death in an attempt to get them to talk. It is my belief that interrogators and their methods should be closely supervised to ensure that they do not take their interrogation techniques too far. Although this in a sense goes against the concept of torture, it is my belief that if torture is to be used on extremely high priority prisoners, guidelines as to who should be subject to such interrogation techniques, what techniques are used, and the degree to which they can be used should be closely regulated and reviewed to ensure interrogators don’t abuse their positions of power of prisoners. In conclusion, I feel that although torture should be avoided at all costs, in some very extreme and rare cases (in which the threat to society is both very apparent and severe) it is required to ensure that society is kept safe from crimes that could threaten thousands of lives, and in these very rare cases, the interrogation techniques need to be closely supervised by an or many officials and deemed necessary by an impartial judge or authority to ensure that the interrogators do not take their interrogation too far.
Torture is physical and/or psychological pain that someone causes another person. Honestly I didnt belive in torture until we talked about it in class. I just thought of it as terrible pain that one person inflicts on another to get what they need. Once I heard what other people said my opinion changed. I think it is acceptable when many innocent lives can be saved. If a person is withholding information when quick action needs to be taken torture may be inflicted so that the person gives up and a group of people are saved. I think torture is only justified in extreme situations and should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Only certain kinds of torture should be used as well. The water board method is an acceptable example. The person feels as though they are drowning but really no harm is being done because their lungs cant fill if they are upside down.
Torture is the infliction of intense anguish or pain on the body (physical) or the mind (psychological). It is either done for punishment, sick pleasure, or in this case to gain pertinent information. I tend to correlate torture only with extreme physical pain carried out a prisoner or such until they relent to say something the torturer wants to hear. By this definition, I believe torture is justified if what is gained from torturing this one person will save many lives in the near future (Like a plan to bomb an area, where many innocent lives would be taken). It is also sometimes justified as punishment if the crime of the person is really great and perhaps caused the suffering of others. It seems right that he should have to feel the same sort of pain he inflicted. However, I believe there’s usually much better ways to punish criminals such repaying the people they affected with their time. Forcing someone to devote their life to a good cause is much more likely to turn them around then a couple days of pain and suffering. Torture is most clearly not justified when someone is doing it simply because they delight in being cruel and like to see the other person suffer. For example, prisoners of war who don’t know any information, but are tortured anyway just because the enemy takes pleasure in seeing their captives suffer.
Torture can be defined as pain or anguish caused to a person physically or psychologically. This pain can be very extreme especially in intense situations. Torture can include, as said in the article, water boarding, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, and more. Although the show 24 is not real, there can be many parallels made to real life. In 24, the main character Jack Bauer uses torture to receive vital information about terrorist attacks. I think that torture can be justified in situations like in that show. If our country is in danger and we need information from a captured terrorist, I think that torture can be used. In the show, because of Jack Bauer's decision to torture his enemies many lives are saved. This can also be true in the real world, if many American lives are in danger, torture can be justified.
I believe torture is defined as inflicting pain upon someone for a certain purpose. I also believe that torture is justified when an American citizen's life is in danger. In class we were saying that we believed it was only okay to use torture if alot of American's lives were in jeopardy, however I feel that if someone knows something that can help protect just one person, we should use all means necessary to get that information. The concept of waterboarding is probably the most effective use of torture, in that the person being tortured really cannot die. I think that this method is the best to be used until that person gives us the information.
Torture is the act of inflicting physical or mental pain on a person. Throughout history, torture has been used to try and coerce people into releasing information they would not normally give of their own will. In relation to the international law, the Geneva Convention ruled that torture is not allowed to be used by countries as a method of prying desired information from prisoners. I believe that the use of torture is never justified. No matter the war, the cause, or the side, torture is not a successful or reliable method. People are now trained to resist torture in order to always keep prized information a secret. In addition, simply because someone might break and give an answer after torture does not necessarily mean what they say is true. Most importantly, torture is an immoral method. Especially in the war on terror, inflicting pain in those we take as prisoners is not the right solution. Our countries solution to a war should not be so low that it is detained from the public and too much of a secret to be shared with the people.
Torture defined in the dictionary is to cause extreme physical or mental pain. I agree with this definition and I also think that the pain would have to continue for an extended time period in order for it to be classified as "torture". I believe that in some cases torture can be justified depending on the seriousness of the crime committed and the reason behind the crime. For example the men who killed the Petits tortured them and I believe that people like that deserve to feel the pain that they caused others for no reason at all.
Torture is a touchy subject. Right from the start though I can tell you that under the correct circumstances I believe that torture is acceptable. Now before you start to ask yourself, what circumstances is he talking about, let me explain. I am referring to issues that relate to the safety and security of this great nation and her people. So for instance someone says that there is a bomb stashed away in an airport, but won’t disclose where it is. Well I am gonna expect his ass to get beat until he spills the information. But on the other hand, if someone gets a driving ticket or some kind of misdemeanor such as this, then torture as to why it happened is completely out of line. So really I think it only applies to situations where people’s lives are at great risk.
Torture is defined as inflicting pain upon a person either physically or psychologically for a certain purpose; either done for punishment, certain kinds of pleasure, or in this case to gain pertinent information. In my thoughts I attach the word torture with the situation of a prisoner being tortured so the torturer can gain valuable information. There are many ways of torture and all are very cruel and unjust, I feel that it is not right to torture unless under EXTREMELY extenuating circumstances. Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions and therefore it is illegal to torture any prisoner. Some people feel that it is right to torture even though it is prohibited but that is like saying that it is ok to steal even though it is illegal. Torture does not even always work, most times the prisoner has been trained and resists the torture and the information is not told. This defeats the purpose of torture in terms of interrogation and it almost seems as if the torture is done solely to punish the prisoner because of his or her affiliation or for the pleasure of the interrogator. In some cases the prisoner might not even know the information that they are being tortured for, so therefore the torture is useless and unnecessary.
I admit that in some cases a minimal amount of torture may be completely and utterly necessary in order to protect millions of lives but it can only be done if it is obvious the prisoner knows the information and it can not be done for extended periods of time like in the article we read. So in the large majority of cases I feel as if torture is not necessary or humane but in a small number it can be used to protect an overwhelming number of people.
Torture, as of the Geneva Convention, is considered illegal as a method of interrogation. As the article describes, the outcome of the Geneva Convention is being completely disregarded by the CIA as torture continues to be used. Although there have been cases where torture is justified, I don’t believe it should be used on prisoners. Some of the so called “prisoners” may just be innocent people who seem like they could be a terrorist. These innocent people are then being tortured for days, months, even years until they confess something useful to the CIA when they had nothing to confess in the first place. I believe the CIA needs to be 100% certain that the person they captured endangered the lives of U.S. citizens or knows something about someone who does.
Torture is the act of inflicting pain as a punishment or simply to get information from a person. For example if somebody has information that is needed for the saftey of a large amount of people you need to do whatever it takes to get it. This is when i think torture is completely necessary. I dont think torture is justified when you just do it to cause harm to somebody for no reason whatsoever, this is were its not necessary. Torture is also psycological pain, the person inflicting the pain might just want to humiliate the person, this also isnt necessary.
Torture is the act of harming someone for the entertainment of others or for the reason of trying to obtain important information. I think that torture can be used as a last form of action towards a person who will not give information. I think that there must be guidelines as to how far a torturer can torture. Therefore I believe that torturing can be justified depending on the situation. If the torturing could save others' lives then it could be justified.
Torture is cruel and immoral punishment of an individual. It can go on for days or weeks at a time and can be mental, like sleep deprivation, or physical, like beating, but either way if one person is intentionally harming another person it is considered torture. Torture is justified if the reason for torture is legitimate. If someone is torturing someone else because they committed a simple crime, torture is not justified. If someone is torturing someone else because they believe they know something that will help them solve a nationwide crisis like terrorism, torture is justified. Torture is immoral and should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary.
Please excuse this again. Google didn't want to recognize my account again.
I believe torture is forcing someone to feel physical or psychological pain in order to extract information from them, or get something the torturer wants. In my opinion, torture is justified only in certain situations. Congress could perhaps come together and set rules for when torture is allowable, and only then should it be used. In the case of the article for instance, where the person being tortured is a terrorist, they may know of a plan that we need information on to save thousands of lives. Methods of torture should also be reviewed, and some banned or only allowed under circumstances. I think torture, and it's methods, is justified under certain circumstances.
Torture to me is any inhumane physical or psychological treatment of prisoners. I personally feel that in some cases torture is justified. Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to set a standard to help judge whether it was justified. This means that to effectively use torture to get information there will be a quick decision made by the person in charge. There may not be time to bring the case before a judge so while people have to be held to some level of accountability, they also have to be allowed to act quickly and effectively.
Torture is the infliction of pain, either mental or physical, which is used as means of coercion, punishment, or even “pleasure.” This is exactly how I define torture, so I don’t feel there is a huge potential for a gray area. I think 99.99% of the time, torture is not justifiable. I don’t believe that what has gone on in the “black site” prisons is legal, and especially is immoral. I’m sure hypothetical situations could be created in which torture would be the only solution; however, some other interrogation techniques could prove to be more effective. It’s not worth the reputation of the U.S. to use torture to get information easily.
Torture is the infliction of both physical and mental pain and agony in order to punish, or coerce. I believe in some situations that torture is justified. When a situation like 9/11 takes place, it is absolutely horrendous what happened to many Americans and I believe that the officials have every right to do every action possible to stop it and get to the bottom of the attacks. The prisoners were clearly warned of the punishments and torture before any of them occurred. When your dealing with people like the senior al-Qaeda captives, it is an extremely different situation then when you’re dealing with one man who shot one person. These men were responsible for thousands of deaths in multiple attacks. It was the government’s responsibility to do whatever was needed to protect the citizens of the United States from future attacks from these terrorists. The treatment may seem unfair to some, but when you’re looking at the big picture, simulating drowning on one terrorist that in the end may save thousands of lives, it is worth it. If terrorists choose to attack the United States, they deserve every possible torture to even begin to feel the pain of every person they killed, as well as the family members of those victims involved. I believe torture is justified in extreme cases, but not for the every day criminals.
I think that torture can be described as harmful actions put upon someone by someone else. The reason for the torture could be punishment or to get the person to fess up to a wrong doing. I believe that torture should not be used for no reason at all, but under certain circumstances, I advise it. I think that torture is okay to be used against someone who has tortured somebody else for no reason. I don't understand how someone can physically or mentally torture someone else because they want to. I know that torture is commonly used to figure out important stuff, usually involing foreign issues. I think that in certain cases this can be justified. I think torture can be used if the person will not willingly admit to things, but torture should definitely not be first initiative.
Torture is the practice of inflicting pain on someone to either get something out of them or the pleasure of dispensing pain on to someone. Torture does not always have to be done physically it can also be done mentally. When you see on the news people that are mass murders, and the judge sentences them to a life in jail I think they shouldn’t get of that easy they should be put through the suffering they put the “person” through when they killed them. With the issue of 9/11 where there were innocent lives taken away I belive they have every right to torture him (by being tied around the neck and slammed into a wall). This does sound malicious but this is a man who did not take out three people’s lives but took out thousands. American’s should not think this is wrong, when Alkita is doing this to our captive soldiers as well. Torture yes is a horrible thing but when it is justified with a reasonable cause it is necessary.
To me, torture is any way of obtaining an object, information or anything else through inflicting physical pain to the victim. I also consider it to be an ongoing process that must happen over a long period of time. Psychological torture is through the means of brainwashing or humiliation. I believe that torture can be justified, but only in a small number of cases. For example, if we capture someone who is believed to be linked to a threat to the U.S., torture can be justified to a certain extent. Permanent damage shouldn't be justified under any circumstances, no matter how dangerous the person may be. Overall, I believe that their are other ways to obtain vital information, but torture can be justified in a very small amount of instances.
Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain physically or mentally, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. I feel that torture should be justified in the extreme cases such as extracting key information from a terrorist or a known serious criminal. I believe that torture should be used to gain information and extract information from the extreme criminals. I feel that there would be no point to torture an individual for punishment. I also feel that if the case had to deal with someone who was a low time criminal for doing something that did not affect national security than torturing that person for information would be pointless. I also believe that there must be some type of proof in order for a person to be tortured and that that person would have to have important information in order for that person to be tortured.
I believe that torture can be defined as significant intended physical and/or psychological harm on an isolated, restrained individual, for a purpose. I believe that certain circumstances absolutely justify the use of torture. Basically, if there is probable belief that a person in question knows information that could help save or prevent injury to some or many other people, I believe that torture should be employed. Although certain forms, particularly those that leave permanent damage, should never or highly rarely be employed, less dangerous and malicious methods can be essential life saving techniques. To me, the pain and suffering of an uncooperative criminal is much less significant than the lives of many innocent everyday people.
Torture is the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain or suffering by or with the consent of the state authorities for a specific purpose. To me torture doesn't have to create severe pain, but has to leave a mental or physical mark. Torture is justified only if there is no other way to get the information. Also you need evidence that the person up for torture has partaken in an act of terror.
I believe the concept of defining torture is difficult, because the term is opinionated. The connotation of torture is different, according to the person who is acting upon it, and the victim. In my own words, in favor of the victim, I believe torture is causing physical/ mental harm to the victim repeatedly, even though the victim tells you to stop.
I believe torture is justified, but only when there is proof that the victim is guilty of something. Like, for example, if there is a murder, and proof has been found that 'person A' had something to do with the crime, then authorities can then use methods of torture to interrogate the suspect.
But, they have to be completely sure that 'Person A' had something to do with it. If later the authorities found out that 'Person A' actually had nothing to do with the crime, i believe 'Person A' has the right to sue the government for their actions.
I think that torture is using physical and mental abuse to make someone feel as thoguh they have to do something. The article talks about torture being used as an interrogation method on prisoners. I believe that that does not justify the use of torute. If torture is a the only last resort method of gaining information from someone then it should be a type that leaves no perminant damage to the person. Torture to me is almost never justified because there are many more ways of getting things done.
In my opinion, torture is an act against someones own will in order to retrieve information from them. I think torture is always justified when it comes to homeland security because if someone was doing something bad enough to have information like that, than they should be painfully tortured until they speak the truth. I don't care what anybody says, when our pow's were being held by the enemy, most were not treated well. Torture these people until they tell us what we need to know. I also believe that regardless of what anyone thinks of torture, it will still be used because there is nothing more useful when it comes to gaining information from informants.
Torture is either physical or mental pain, that has the person being tortured is either think he is dying or in extreme pain. it can be an excellent tool to extract information especially from verbal integration does not seam affective. but it is morally wrong and does not right even under acts of terrorism.
I define torture as continuous assault on a person over time in order to receive information. It may also be done for pleasure. Torture does not always include physical pain, but it includes pain mentally. Someone may talk to a victim in a harsh manner, and this victim may become mentally damaged by it. Torture is meant to make a victim or an accused criminal feel under pressure, extremely uncomfortable and scared. Torture can be justified, but only under certain conditions. If someone is accused of a certain crime, they should not be tortured unless they explain to the police that they did not commit the crime. As long as they have details to support the fact that they are innocent, they should not be tortured. If they refuse to say anything and the police still feel as though this person committed a crime, the person can be tortured until he or she gives an explanation of what they really did.
To me, torture is a method of making someone feel uncomfortable or feel pain, either physically or mentally. Torture can be used for information or to some people it is used for their own pleasure. I think that using torture to gather information is in no way necessary. I strongly believe that violence only provokes more violence. Al Qaeda must hate America even more because of the torture we are using on their imprisoned members. I believe the best way to gather information from these people is to treat them like normal human beings and use verbal and psychological methods of interrogation instead of physical and violent methods.
Torture is any physical or mental harm to a person to get them to do something or say something they don't want to do or say. I think there are times when torture is necessary but only in cases where mass amounts of people would be injured or killed as a result. There are certain types of torture that are never necessary such as water boarding. I feel that officials take torture to extremes that are unnecessary and inhumane.
Post a Comment