Micheal Levins the Case for Torture in

¶ … Micheal Levins "The Case for Torture In my opinion, Michael Levin's arguments in his essay, "The Case for Torture," cannot be sustained and are easily dismantled for the simple fact that they are not fully logical and are too much based on simple suppositions and false premises. I will be able in my essay to dismantle his arguments one by one, so as in the end to prove that the use of torture, under any circumstances, is not only immoral, unethical and illegal (under international laws), but also impracticable.

In his essay, Michael Levin starts from a simple supposition: a terrorist has placed an atomic bomb in Manhattan, thus threatening the lives of millions of individuals. By a stroke of luck, he is caught in the morning of the fateful day, but "preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is." Obviously, going through the entire legal procedure (lawyer, rights, etc.) would take too long and would mean the loss of lives. So what comes to Michael Levin's mind?! Torture obviously.

This entire supposition is from the very beginning based on a false and extremely unlikely premise. I do not disagree to arguing hypothetical facts, but I am assuming we are to keep at least a slight trace of rationality, otherwise we may as well discuss a Mexican attack against California. First of all, I believe that only in the Hollywood movies have we seen terrorists being captured before the actual terrorist act takes place.

In most cases, it takes plenty of time for the intelligence agencies to discover who was behind a terrorist act (if the act is not admitted immediately) and only then may some of them be caught (for example, the Libyan terrorists that were involved in the terrorist attack at Lockerby). Second of all, I am assuming that the rate of terrorists captures is pretty slim.

I am assuming that, given the fact that most of them fight for different idealistic causes, that many of them are fanatical and totally anti- Western world), many would prefer to die rather than be captured. Third of all, it is more than highly unlikely that there would be a terrorist act of such magnitude operated by a single terrorist (as we seem to understand from Michael Levin's essay).

It is at the same time extremely unlikely that only one of the members of the terrorist band would be captured, because it is generally assumable that they tend to stick together. Finally, fourth of all, if one of the terrorists was captured, it is highly absurd to consider that the terrorist demands are not still extremely actual and that any kind of measure, however extreme, would make him talk. Anyhow, giving all these considerations, I will bear with all of Mr.

Levin's rather absurd and unrealistic premises, just for the sake of a sophism. There are so many arguments against the use of torture, that I'll simply start with the only argument...for the use of torture in extreme terrorist cases. The only argument I see (and indeed the only argument Mr.

Levin seems to see throughout his entire essay) is the fact that "the end justifies the means." This argument is altogether rather weak: we must recall that this phrase was written some 500 years ago, by Machiavelli, and things today are not in the least similar to things then. We live in a different world society, with different rules, with different laws and customs and such a phrase may only apply in a personal environment (if there at all).

The first and foremost argument against using torture in any case is that it is against all form of international law. Indeed, most of the countries of the world have signed several conventions where torture is specifically mentioned as unlawful and is eliminated from use. Conventions against use of torture are similar to conventions against use of mass destruction weapons, etc. have been signed.

If one does not respect one of them, what guarantee do we have that any of them would be respected?! What is the point of signing international conventions if one does not abide by them? The second argument against using torture with a terrorist (with anybody, for that matter...) is the fact that you can never be too sure about the truth or the utility of confessions under torture.

What if the terrorist blabbers out a misleading location? What was the point of torture then? The Inquisition gave plenty of examples of persons who could suddenly admit the most terrible crimes under torture. On terrorists, this may have a similar effect, with the same amendment that the quality of information thus obtained may be rather poor. The third argument is that torture is a barbaric and ancient method.

What will come next after this?! Killing a man with stones?! We are not here to discuss the barbarism of executions, but torture seems to go back hundreds of years, all the way to the Dark Ages and nobody really wants to return there. One of the most important and dangerous counterarguments seems to me the fact that, if such a thing as torture is allowed even in these remote cases and procedures, there is nothing to guarantee that its use will not be gradually extended in the future.

For example, the first step would be to extend torture use to all terrorists, even if they have not necessarily laid a bomb, in order to obtain information about the terrorist network. Then, we can extend it to the suspected terrorist, in the same way and for the same purpose (wouldn't Mr. Levin like to torture some Islamic population in the United States) and so on and so forth.

Where will this get to in the end?! One of the most solid arguments seems to me the fact that the use of torture would mean serious retaliation from terrorist factions everywhere. Of course, it is not that the Allied behavior stops that from practicing barbaric.