The Case for torture
The case for torture will arise, they are many people who do not consciously value the human life; “terrorist” other wise known as freedom fighters, or in many circumstances soldiers for god. The evil insidious separatists are against common law and contemporary order. They use act of terror to suppress governments and, innocent individuals. They hijack planes, fire RPG’s into military helicopters, kill NATO soldiers, and innocent civilians for religious difference, ethnicity, and ideals. How do we deal with people who obviously do not care about order? How do we find out there motives and imminent plans? How do we protect the life of innocent people from mass murder? Well, interrogation and courtroom hearings wont work; not to mention the tax money spend from the tax payer to keep, feed, maintain, pay security, and provide resources such as light and water during there incarceration. How his it immoral to kill a pest, for example there is a rodent in your house spoiling the food and putting holes in the wall, how would you fix that situation? I would consider most likely to terminate the rodent. That’s what terrorist are, pest that need to be handle under extreme matters. Therefore, there is probably cause to commence torturing for information, followed by there termination, on basis the terrorist are too dangerous to live. That is my opinion, I there anyone to criticize me for it because you would say the same thing if your sister, brother, mother, father, or son and daughter was in jeopardy (imminent excruciating pain).
I understand that in America they are fewer terrorist acts, other than a few crazy teenager or old psychopath will get disgruntled from time to time and, massacre a school or mall, then kill himself. The media makes a big deal for day or two, families cry and demand that this never happen again. The government will then tighten up gun control. The criminals will then by more illegal fire arms. Forensics will then become more advance in solving murder cases. It tends to go in a cycle each time something changes; thank god things change. However, the typical American does not think there should be torture, because there are really no serious crimes for someone to be tortured for it. I disagree; because a crime is fact an act of terror. A terrorist is defined as an act of terror against a non combating civilian. Therefore, a gang banger, pedophile, drug dealer, the thief, matchstick man, and rapist are all terrorist, and if there is some need for information and the person is obviously guilty they should be tortured. Basically, if there is need for valuable information excruciating pain might let them talk. The authorities would then have to document the so called inhumane behavior, which it is, but think about it. Would there be any need for an inhumane act, if they weren’t any inhumane acts committed? This goes back to question one in the book.
The author, Michael Levin stated that sometimes you can torture the wrong guy. I agree that is true it would not be fair to torture, a suspect without the evidence of a crime or intention. I agree also that the death penalty will not bring the victim back; but like Levin said, “it was not intended to” I also agree, furthermore, the death penalty saves waste resources(money) and it gives positive reinforcement to why crime doesn’t pay. Does inflicting pain as one way of preserving order, versus becoming paralyzed in the face of evil represent the choices fairly? Do protecting your child from a pedophile by serious inflicting pain on the pedophile, fairly represent your choices? Or you rather to let the rapist go a head and rip the entry point of your son’s gluteus maximus and the law