Take a position on the use of torture as described by Bagaric and Clarke. Then post discussion notes for our class discussion on Monday. Those notes should consist of
1. The thesis of a potential essay. Please remember that the thesis is based on YOUR claim about torture and is not a claim made by B & C. Your thesis probably ought to play off of B & C's ideas, but the idea expressed should be your idea.
2. A set of claims that either support B & C or refute their claims. Those claims can get a bit complicated because many of B & C's claims are already refutations.
3. A set of arguments that respond to possible refutations of your claims.
4. Any evidence that you can drum up supporting your claims and possible responses to refutations of your claim.
As usual, have your notes posted by Sunday night so that the rest of the class and I can have a chance to read them before our class discussion on Monday. Also, please bring a hard copy (or a suitable way of reading your notes via electronic device) to class. You'll do better in the class discussion if you have your notes in front of you.
I completely disagree
ReplyDeleteTorture has been used since the beginning of time during the early 1940s and late 1950s a method of torture, which required someone to drill a whole in order to determine " whether someone had mental ailmnets or not" was completely abusrd. So, you also think that the crucifixion method, which was a slow and painful death for our lord and saviour, was justifiable the man did nothing, yes I understand that he was saving our lives, but you mean to tell me they fed him poison through a sponge, causing him to die was somehow justified ?
- torture in order to save an innocent life , would be the ONLY reason that torture would be remotely necessary to use but in most cases torture has been used for " shits and giggles" meaning that they just want to see a person squirm. There has been cases in which torture has saved a life but most times its just been used as a punishment
- the only argument that can be used is that tourture is somehow a means to survive
If there are innocent lives at stake, were would you draw the line in trying to save them? Torture is not necessarily used in every case but sometimes it is needed. People will claim that it doesn’t work and just causes unnecessary harm. More will claim that torture causes more emotional harm to the person torturing. There are many ways that these are untrue and or for this to not happen. To keep our country and citizens safe, we should use whatever tactics we have to. The CIA Director, John Brennan, strongly believes that torture helps them. In many cases torture has saved innocent lives.
ReplyDelete-Torture has not been effective enough to warrant the use of it, even in order to save an innocent life.
ReplyDelete-Allowing torture will increase the use and instances of torture; people will make up excuses about it being used to save someone
-If torture does not produce results, it does dehumanize society
-Torture is not a necessary risk when the majority of the time it does not lead to saving an innocent life
-In “Neuroscience: Torture Doesn’t Work and Here’s Why,” the Newsweek staff report several key facts about why torture doesn’t work. For instance, stress caused by torture releases cortisol, thus impairing memory and cognitive function. Also, stress releases noradrenaline which can enlarge the amygdala, thus, impairing memory and the ability to distinguish true from false/implanted memories.
-In “Does Torture Work? The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found,” Matt Apuzzo, Haeyoun Park, and Larry Buchanan report eight cases in which the C.I.A. used torture even when information was already uncovered.
I agree with this, I think that if torture is needed to save an innocent life, why not do it? Although it might cause emotional trauma and even physical trauma, I believe that if a person is benefitting from the torture then we should take advantage of it. In order to keep society safe and the people safe in that society, then we will have to use some sort of violence. In history, violence has been used to solve problems and even when we do not want to use it again, it is always resorted to violence. If people are going to use violence why not use it to save lives of the innocent people.
ReplyDeleteI disagree
ReplyDelete-Are there any lines? what is considered "ok" morally acceptable torture, and what is considered going too far?
-how far are people willing to go with only a chance that you might get answers. You could torture someone, and not even end up with the answers you were looking for
-Once you say torture is morally acceptable when you need vital information from someone, you are allowing for there to be a lot of problems. Morals are personal and are different amongst different people, but what one person might find morally acceptable torture, might not seem moral to someone else. Who is correct? How do you decide whos morals to follow and listen too?
-when you say torture is ok when you need information to save an innocent life, you are saying that the innocent persons life is of higher value to you than the person you are torturing, and who are you to decide which life is more important?
I agree
ReplyDelete-Bagaric and Clarke argue torture is a just action and provide reasoning, such as torture and hostage situations, as for why torture is a necessary technique in certain situations.
-Surgery- Causing pain to help someone.
-Refutation- This is not torture this is medically required surgery to save someone's life.
-Hostage situations- Anything necessary to get the hostage away from the wrongdoer.
-Refutation- The wrongdoer chose his path, but that still doesn’t mean pain and death are the only ways out, reason with him.
-Torture has the potential to save people's lives, it is our duty to try and save the innocent people out there.
-The needs of many outweigh the cost of one person's torture
I agree with the use of torture on the basis that it is the only option left in saving a life and it is guaranteed to save a life.
ReplyDelete-Not all forms of torture have to be physical
-is the comfort of one life worth the possibility of loosing multiple lives?
-Torture is never going to disappear, been around for ages
I agree
ReplyDelete-Torture should be allowed if it would save an innocent life
-There has to be guidelines and rules to state when the torture is allowed and when it is not allowed
-Sometimes In order key information from a suspect, people have to use violence. In this case torture should be used
-Torturing a suspect should not be the first step to get information. It should be on of the last steps
-
I disagree with the use of torture, except in extreme consequences.
ReplyDelete-There are other methods to get information from people such as court trials; this will help justify if the person even committed a crime and deserves punishment.
-What are the boundaries that define the right way to torture or when you go to far? If people used torture in small doses and have to keep applying larger and larger amounts, the person receiving the torture may become acclimated to the pain or simply die from the sheer amount of pain being delivered.
-Other ways to make people atone for their crimes such as community service and prison-service of their crimes is morally better than people to just receive torture for their crimes.
-I agree with torture, as long as it is used in the right situation to help save lives.
ReplyDelete-Torture can help stop acts of terror
-It should be used to save innocent lives
-Even if it is deemed illegal, people will still use it to extract information.
Torture has been used throughout history as a way of taking information from someone. How many lives must be on the line for torture to be necessary? I believe that torture is morally right if used in the correct way. If used to gather valuable information, than yes, but if it is used just to inflict pain on another for no reason what so ever, than it is wrong.
ReplyDelete- Torture is absolutely necessary when innocent lives are at stake, as people have the moral obligation to do whatever possible when innocent lives are in danger
ReplyDelete- torture is sometimes the only way to extract invaluable information that could be used to help save lives
- The lives of the innocent are more valuable than the rights of the perpetrator
- Although torture can be a slippery slope, even if it was illegal, the criminal groups would still use it as they are not law abiding citizens
- In the big picture, the good outweighs the bad
• The underlying subject in the essay poses the age old question: is torture an effective way of extracting information?
ReplyDelete• Israeli government warns US not to implement torture, ineffective and counterproductive.
• Radical jihadist recruitment spiked after Guantanamo scandal.
• An argument could be made that torture is often time used more or pleasure rather the efficiency.
• Intel is subject too human error, resulting in misinformation.
- I agree with authors.
ReplyDelete- Torture is justifiable when it comes to saving innocent people's lives.
-although many countries use torture as a means to gain information, torture does not guarantee anything: the torturer does not know that they will be able to save a life or if they will be gaining correct information
ReplyDelete-torture produces false intelligence; those being tortured will say anything in order for it to stop
-torture can cause permanent physical and psychological damage for the torturer and wrongdoer
-the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person deserves respect and the act of torture takes away that respect
- If you get saving innocent lives out of torture, I am all for it.
ReplyDelete- Torture can almost guarantee getting answers out of people.
- We should do everything in our power to save innocent lives, even if it's in a disturbing way. We have to do what gets us answers.
- I agree torture should be used
ReplyDelete- Torture should be used only in extreme cases only to save multiple lives.
- Talking to someone to get important information from might not be enough.
- Even if they make torture illegal people will continue to do it.
- The government should put limits on how far they could go so they could go.
- Government already has death sentence, What’s worse then death?
Torture should be used if
ReplyDelete-It is to save the life on an innocent person(s).
HOWEVER
-It is highly circumstantial, and torture has often been found unsuccessful.
I agree it should be used, but within certain guidelines and circumstances.
ReplyDelete-If it is to save an innocent life
-If it is the absolute last resort
-If it does more help than harm
-If it is always with good intentions
-If that person is 100% guilty
- If it for a greater good and not for any type of personal enjoyment
-If it is only to the extent that is absolutely necessary
-All tactics should be used before torture
- As long as it doesn’t cause permanent damage
-It can help under extreme circumstances
-If used wrongly can cause permanent physical and mental damage
-Raises ethical and human rights issues
I agree that torture should be used
ReplyDelete-it should be used to save innocent lives
-only if it is to help bring the wrongdoer to blame
-never to just harm someone for the fun of it
-have a strong feeling that the person being tortured committed the crime
I only think that torture should be used in certain situations. I feel as if it should and can be used to save lives. I think that certain methods of torture should not be allowed. The person being tortured must be the one who is convicted of the crime.
ReplyDeleteI agree
ReplyDelete-Sometimes in order key information from a suspect, people have to use violence.in this case torturing should be used
-Not all forms of torture have to be physical
-Have a strong feeling the person being tortured committed the crime
-If it is to save an innocent life.
-I completely agree with Clarke and Bageric
ReplyDelete-The use of torture against a person who has committed a crime worthy of being tortured deserves it fully.
-In events where a terrorist attack is able to be stopped through advanced interrogation or torture, the use of those tactics are completely justified
-The worth of thousands of innocent people outweigh the rights afforded to someone who breaks the law in a heinous enough manner to warrant torture
-Those who commit large scale acts of terror should not be afforded rights under our constitution, they forfeit those rights when they attempt to destroy the peace.
I completely disagree that torture is needed to save a life
ReplyDelete1. Torture destroys the victim and the perpetrator. It breaks the latter by making him sub-human and debases those who commit it.
2. Every human being deserves respect. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recalls the rights and duties of all of us.
3. Mankind, in order to survive on earth, must limit the extent of his violence and put a stop to certain types of destructive behavior.
4. We are responsible for each other which means we must ensure full respect of our rights and the dignity of our fellow men and women.
5. Torture is always an evil for those involved; there is no such thing as “good” torture, nor good reasons to torture. The end does not justify the means.
5. The consequences of torture remain with an individual throughout his life; his soul and his body will bear the marks of his suffering until the end of his days.
- "war on terrorism", has somehow justified torture? The attitudes and events post 9/11 justify acts that go against our political ideologies
ReplyDelete- "given the choice between inflicting a relatively small - level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person" (p. 3)...what is deemed "relatively small"? There's no regulation (that I know of), and that's a subjective statement in of itself...
- p. 4, cops are subjective too, many would argue (based on recent events) that cops would be far more likely to shoot a black person -- matters of race are extremely important in "seeking justice", further perpetuated in Islamophobia
- I agree that there are instances where torture is morally permissible, but the fact is that a lot of torture isn't
- if it were legalized, there could more feasibly be standards, putting a ban on it could easily perpetuate the problem, inflicting more pain
- "there is no basis for ranking one person's pain more importantly to that of another" (p. 14). Americans do deem themselves more important, especially in thinking of it on a global scale...(globalization, making everyone adhere to our standards)
- this idea of "morals" is quickly discredited (p. 16,17)