...Torture and Terrorism. On September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by the terrorist group Al-Qaida. Terrorists hijacked four airplanes and carried out attack against targets in the United States. September 11 attack resulted in the loss of almost three thousand people, and caused at least ten billion dollars of damage on infrastructure and property. Following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the United States of America, which was the number one defender of human rights around the world faced questions about the use of torture to obtain confessions. The debates over torture’s legitimacy created two groups, one defending the use of torture to save innocent people’s lives,...
Words: 1332 - Pages: 6
...The United States has been an example in following the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) since 1984. Any use of torture was considered not only as an infringement of the human rights, but also an infringement to the same convention which United States was a signer. Nevertheless, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist incursion changed the United States position against torture. Officials who were highly concerned about the security of the country voted for a start of a war against terrorism. During the same period any interrogation techniques, whether conventional or unconventional, were used on suspects to gain intelligence about any presumable imminent terrorist attack. The United States violated the UNCAT and began torturing its suspects. Many incidents reported by the media since 2002 revealed that prison guards were instructed to “prepare” prisoners for the interrogation suggesting the use of torture to intimidate them before the interrogation starts (“The Legal Prohibition”). These events caused a debate on the authorization of torture. The UNCAT signed by the United States defines torture as a dehumanizing interrogation...
Words: 2108 - Pages: 9
...legalizing it and therefore taking away the drug cartels number one source of income. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy ... says that more than 60 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market (Armentano2). It is ridiculous to think that the United States can put out a statistic like this and ignore the fact that if they legalized the drug there would be less violence because there would be no point for Mexican drug cartels to try and smuggle the drug into the U.S. In the article “Blame Prohibition, Not Pot Smokers for Violence in Mexico”, published by AlterNet.org, Tony Newman tells us how the people who run the “Just Say No” campaign against drugs have a new scheme in which they plan to blame people who smoke pot for the violence in Mexico. They are hoping to stop younger people from smoking marijuana if they associate it with the murder of people by the drug cartels in Mexico. There are a few problems with these campaigns: They are inaccurate in some cases, and downright dishonest in others.Office of National Drug Control Policy It is disingenuous to connect the average American's marijuana consumption to the horrific violence of Mexico's drug war. The average pot smoker's growing and purchasing of marijuana has no relationship to the violence along the border that is the result of large-scale drug trafficking. It isn’t hard to understand that the legalization of marijuana...
Words: 1068 - Pages: 5
...Position Paper Khadijah Shabazz CNSL 5203 Dr. Sampson Prairie View A&M University 9/20/2015 The legalization of drugs is one of the most controversial and debated topics of the 21st century. There are both negative and positive reasons to legalize them as well as negative and positive reasons to keep them prohibited. According to LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP").LEAP goes on to say that criminal gangs are driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children and as such their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP"). It is LEAP’s belief that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP"). Another positive aspect of the legalization of drugs is financial gains. According to the International Business Times in a study for the Cato Institute, Jeffrey A. Miron, senior lecturer on economics at Harvard University and a senior...
Words: 1233 - Pages: 5
... But there have always been varying ulterior motives. According to Baylor University Professor of Sociology, Dr. Diana Kendall, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed solely to criminalize marijuana by taxing it; this would dissuade migrant Mexican workers who smoked marijuana to seek employment elsewhere and not take jobs from U.S. citizens as the country struggled during the Great Depression (Kendall, 2010). Last year, voters in Colorado and Washington State approved legislation that supported the commercial growth, sale, possession and use of recreational marijuana. In response, United States Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, promulgated policy that established the posture for enforcing marijuana laws against people or organizations to that: Distribution of marijuana to minors; revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels; the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some...
Words: 1535 - Pages: 7
...Global Politics: The feasibility of universal drug liberalization as an emerging phenomenon RWaterhouse Globalization & The War on Drugs: Assessing alternatives to criminalization The purpose of this paper is to address universal drug liberalization as a feasible alternative to the current drug control regime specifically in North America and potentially applicable elsewhere. With an in depth analysis of the historical regulation, implementation of law, and resulting consequences we will be able to see how nations are effected by complex drug politics and why there has been a global paradigm shift in looking spiritedly at the ideal of decriminalization. I argue in favor of liberalization by bringing to attention the violence associated with the commodification of illegal drugs, what the re-directed costs of control could mean for domestic investment into proactive drug awareness education, and finally recognizing Portugal’s success and weaknesses in the adoption of a compete legalization agenda. Following will be a discussion of concluding thoughts centered on the efficacy and feasibility of universal liberalization in today’s globalized world. Historical Context Libertarianism has almost always had position in political discourse but has been majorly popularized through public attention within the era of globalization. (article) Control of drug consumption has always been a contemporary ingredient in the political reform of Canada and the America’s and...
Words: 404 - Pages: 2
...The so-called “War on Drugs,” as declared by the Nixon administration in the signing of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, marked the beginning of the current era of mandatory minimum sentencing, racism, privatized prisons, and a powerful constituency that profits as a result of the prohibition of drugs. Psychoactive substances have been apart of the human experience as long as humans have walked the earth. There is little hope that drug production will ever be curtailed, so long as there is a demand; a demand that has remained steady even though it has been forty years since the beginning of said war. As Judge James P. Gray from the Superior Court of Orange County has so plainly put it: “Where did this policy come from? Unfortunately I have conducted an inquiry into this and I have determined that drug prohibition laws came for reasons of racism, empire building, and ignorance.”(Booth) The War on Drugs is politically motivated as a means of profiting. One may ask them self how government can financially benefit from such policies. In fact, they benefit in a myriad of ways. The government spends an exorbitant amount of money in an attempt to combat drug production and drug usage. The U.S. government has spent over a trillion—that’s right a trillion—dollars in its attempt to eradicate the drug problem. With so much time, effort and money there should be something to show, right? Wrong. Today drugs are more prevalent, more potent and cheaper than...
Words: 1759 - Pages: 8
...John Badidis 1/4/13 Ethics Dr. Yoder Box 1150 Can Torture Ever Be Justified? The topic of torture has been discussed rigorously over recent years, and many are torn on the issue. In my personal opinion, one can justify torture on human standards if there is no God in the picture. However due to the fact that I am a believer in Jesus Christ, I cannot justify the action. Why would God ever have it be His will to put a man or woman who in a situation to torture his own creation and be ok with it? All throughout scripture we see that God never tortures man in the way some of us feel is occasionally necessary to save lives. Sure God is a God of Wrath, but His wrath was never inhumane. If we call ourselves believers, then I do not see how we can justify this action. I think that it is also important to remember that God is the only giver of life and death. Who are we to think that we can take these matters in our own hands? We must ask ourselves what is right? Next is the issue of sin. Here are a series of questions. -Does every man and women sin? Yes -Is every sin the same in Gods eyes? Yes -Would you consider electrocuting, cutting, burning, and drowning a man or woman created by God a sin? Yes -Does God ever want his children to sin? No, it saddens our Father every time we sin. With this conclusion, one must see that there is no difference between the torturer (the one who cuts, burns, drowns, etc.…), and the tortured (terrorist who plants a bomb to kill millions.)...
Words: 502 - Pages: 3
...current debate regarding torture being used as an interrogation measure stands whether or not forms of torture are being masked as “enhanced” interrogation techniques to extract information from suspected terrorists. The argument in Essay 161 is that waterboarding and other severe interrogation methods constitute as torture, and are not effective. Therefore, we should find alternative solutions to extract information. The argument in Essay 172 is that severe interrogation methods are necessary to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives. Therefore, we should reject the arguments made by those against severe interrogation methods. In this paper, I will evaluate each of these arguments and furthermore say which argument is stronger with evidence. Enhanced interrogation methods refers to the U.S government’s program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (and others) authorized by the George W. Bush administration.3 Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized suspect, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, and other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.3 Whether waterboarding should be classified as a method of torture or not since it was...
Words: 1066 - Pages: 5
...Perspectives on Torture and the War on Terrorism An evaluation on Several Arguments Tonia Jenkins Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Snelgrove June 13, 2012 Michael Yoo used several definitions from several different places to define torture in his argument. The first definition is the one he used when he defined torture as the following: act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. The other definition he uses it used to show what the government defines torture as. This definition is as follows: The United States understands that in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental pain caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) administration or application, or threatened administration of application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated...
Words: 1538 - Pages: 7
...The Torture Debate Wednesday, January 22, 2014 Word Count: 983 The debate continues to intensify surrounding the issue of torture and whether or not it is a justifiable or unnecessary evil. Irrespective of its degree of acceptability, it is conclusively an inhumane practice, which violates the civil liberties of us as people. From the inception, I disagree with the use of coercion to elicit information, as I believe it compromises our humanity. Advocates of legitimizing torture proclaim that it is a controllable means with which to interrogate and obtain answers from dangerous individuals in the effort of saving innocent lives. While torture has proven to facilitate some desired outcomes in the past, its legitimacy has yet to be completely substantiated, especially in comparison to other interrogative techniques. Additionally, those not in favour of legalizing and implementing torture, also argue that torture will simply be used incompetently by the state. Realistically, the argument regarding the legitimacy of this atavistic tactic is one mostly dominated by human morals and opinions. Throughout the article, Rumney and O’Boyle write from a very analytical and objective perspective. First they highlight and consider the legitimacy of torture as a means of extracting information. Historically, torture has been proven to provide useful information to alleviate situations and preserve the lives of innocent people (Rumney & O'Boyle, 2007). In this sense, it is unjust...
Words: 1057 - Pages: 5
...Abstract: The Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act both deal with individuals who infringe on the rights of others by torture or extrajudicial killing. These statutes have been explained to juries who have to argue their differences while others have explained both statutes are similar hence they should be used simultaneously. The idea of using both statutes simultaneously gets its origins from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The legislative branch has never explained the relationship between the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The only guidance in attempting to understand the two statutes and any possible relationship with one another is the Torture Victim Protection Act was codified...
Words: 2142 - Pages: 9
...by a specific lifestyle imposes certain conditions on humans. In this paper, I will be tackling the topic of torture and how modern civilizations cannot cope with such an idea so disastrous and humiliating to mankind. Justifying the act of torture cannot resemble but an annoying image of humanity. In what’s below, I will argue with and against the practice of torture and will come to a conclusion that no matter what, torture will always reflect negatively on the society as the only way of justifying it is through perfect knowledge of the consequences that no one knows but God. I also considered the scenario of ticket- time bomb because it is considered to be the heaviest argument that justifies torture. So, let’s see how torture isn’t justified. One night, I went into my house and saw a man, on TV, beating a defenceless tied person. The man was actually beating the guy and enjoying the extreme pain he’s suffering from. He even cut the guy’s feet with a butcher’s knife. My whole family was watching the movie. My dad seemed to enjoy the movie. My brother was just shouting for the man and encouraging him to beat the guy further. My mom had no reaction towards what’s happening. And still my sister who looked really annoyed and demanded to change the channel over and over. This gives rise to the question of whether torture should be accepted or not. And does accepting torture imply that it is justified? The movie, called “Hostel”, turned out to be talking about a group of Man hunters...
Words: 2644 - Pages: 11
...Torture and Ethics Paper Jennifer Yow ASJ 532 June 16, 2014 Since -9/11, torture has been official US policy by George Bush at the highest levels of government. On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering CIA to "Capture, Kill, or Interrogate Al-Queda Leaders." (Lendman, 2008). It also authorized establishing a secret global facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. In the same time, Bush approved a secret "high-value target list" of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists that were not on the list (Lendman, 2008). What is torture: (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain or suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of a person's autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will." We will discuss terrorism and torture, look at arguments for and against each practice, and ethically evaluate those arguments (Lendman, 2008).. If pain is meant to break the will of the person, one must ask when we might have an interest in doing so. Certainly violating the freedom through violence is not acceptable for citizens; I may not justifiably torture you to obtain what I want from you, be it your property, your behavior, or your ideological consent (Lendman, 2008). Also, the police may not torture to obtain information...
Words: 1562 - Pages: 7
...The Morality of Torture The authority of using torture as a punishment in the past has been a cause for conflict. Today, some people see torture as an efficient form of punishment; they believe it is especially necessary in the treatment of terrorist prisoners or prisoners for the purpose of pulling information. Some writers make up fake situations to blow the advantages of torture out of proportion, claiming that it is danger free, low cost and useful for getting fast response. However, after carefully thinking through the arguments used by many torture supporters, one will figure out that the arguments of torture supporters are false. Writers who support torture show less logic, but rather offended anger to evil violence. The use of torture as а form of punishment should be prohibited because contrary to the arguments of torture supporters, it does not serve а purpose, is against international law, and will only perpetuate hatred and retaliation. (Davis) According to, the International Statuette, Torture is any kind of use of force, mental or physical used on a human being to gain third party information or self-confession. No country prefers to use it but is forced to do in order to safeguard the lives of its citizens and smoothen justice. (Greenberg) Most criminal suspects go through some level of torture. Torture may involve Physical methods like starvation, beatings, burning, sodomy as well as psychological methods such as verbal abuse, solitary confinement, and sleep...
Words: 1622 - Pages: 7
