Torture Can Be Simply Explained

Torture can be simply explained as mental, emotional or physical torment and suffering. The thesis will primarily include logical reasons and opinions on how the man-induced torture should not be used as a tool of war, barring exceptions or urgencies, and why.

This topic of torture is important considering the current inclination of nations and states of the 21st century towards strengthening their war regimes and tactics which has simultaneously shown a substantial increase in the discussions on what form of torture is allowed and to what extent and purpose can it be used. The topic of torture has become even more significant for government candidates to include in their political campaigns since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. soil and the consequent initiation of the War on Terror.

In this thesis, the main emphasis will lie on the impacts of torture as a means to move forward with an intelligent war or conflict strategy. Furthermore this thesis will include opinions of both sides i.e. whether torture should be used as a war tactic or not. Body: One of the main observations that nobody seems to be making is that torture as a tool of war is limited in its range.

This simply means that using torture to extract information is very circumstantial and highly dependent upon the gravity of the situation. There are many who are disillusioned by the War on Terror and clam that torture should in no way be a tactic because of the extent of inhumane personal intrusion that is its direct consequence. John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate for the U.S.

presidential election, is a war veteran and a survivor of inhumane torture and hence he seems to condone any and all form of torture that can or has been used in the past to extract useful information. The main logic behind his overlooking the circumstantial importance in his proposal of a 'no torture' law is the "two-way street" approach.

He portrays a strong belief that allowing the American interrogators to use inhumane or personally intrusive measures to extract information automatically gives every single enemy of theirs to treat American captives in a similar manner. This approach and logic has been supported by a vast majority of senators and citizens as well, and in all fairness, it does make a logical argument.

There is no need to make a law with regards situations that are rare because if a law gives the window to use torture pertaining dire circumstances, then like most other criminal laws, the law of torture can also be manipulated for personal advantages.

The UN and Council of Europe have shown various concerns since the beginning of the War on Terror on the means and methods used by numerous interrogators to extract information claiming that the methodologies are defiant of the human and civil rights which are pertinent to all humans irrespective of their nationality, race or religion. This concern has been, though, voiced globally, has also faced severe criticism from numerous fronts.

There are many who believe that the Israeli ticking time bomb concept is directly related to the allowance of torture, in whatever condition necessary, in order to avoid or stop an imminent and far-extended disaster that could potentially endanger millions. These critics seem to believe that in such a situation, it is the balance of the numbers that matter: saving millions from a potential long-term disaster at the price of torturing one or two individuals.

Many of these critics quote the example of Rabin and his choices in the Waxman case and also use the example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his extent of knowledge of the Al-Qaeda tactics as foundations of situations where torture should and can be used as an important tool of war (in the first case) or avoiding imminent danger (in the second case).

It is important to not underestimate the intelligence of the enemies because, as McCain personally relates, the captives of war can and do relate untrue and invalid information to not only protect their allegiance but also stop the use of torture on them. The dilemma lies herein: neither of the two approaches is entirely wrong.

The former, seemingly more humane, also seems impractical considering the fact that the overall dangers that hover the world today in the form of weaponry available and tactics designed are far advanced and devastating than anything else that has been witnessed in history. Its impracticality lies in its overlooking the gravity of an attack and in how torture at the right time and towards the right link could prove to be the difference between mass destruction and liberty.

The fact is that this idea cannot stand firm for long in the face of the dangers and perils that can be caused today. The latter approach, seemingly harsh, also seems ignorant of the fact that terrorism or war is not restricted to any race, religion or nation. Since the beginning of time, every nation has looked for supremacy in the world and planned for it accordingly.

Yes, the current methodologies are more disaster-prone but that only confirms that there isn't one single nation that cannot have its intelligence designers, or soldiers, captured and tortured for information that could "potentially save millions" including American intelligence designers and soldiers. The latter belief seems to project that the American intelligence only has reactionary plans while that is not only naive to believe and hypocritical to project.

The facts, in the 21st century, are these: the economic state of a nation (agricultural, industrialized, capitalized, urbanized, etc.) is one of the main factors that determine their approach towards their overall policies on torture. History has shown that it is usually authoritarian governments who have been recorded to have the most extensive and complicated torture laws and strategies.

Comparatively, the governments that promote democracy that initiate and apply the extreme conditions of torture on not only their enemies but also their own citizens in circumstances of civil wars or internal clashes. One of the main indicators of the torture laws or policies that a government makes is dependent upon the balance between the economic state of the country and the nature of its government. Conclusion: Throughout the thesis above, the two ideologies towards the use of torture as a tool of war or strategy have.