
Torture, under any circumstance, is both morally wrong and ineffective. According to "Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk..." without any form of physical harm. (Washington Post) Even with religious fanatics and particularly stubborn people, torture would only cause them to tell you anything to stop. Some individuals who have had experience with torture might claim that an outsider would not understand the value of torture because they are separated from the situation. However, I believe that someone who is separated from the situation would be more likely to make the decision that is both morally correct and effective in gaining information. Emotion and stress are both factors that would undoubtedly cause a person to make irrational decisions. In many cases the torturer might have a personal stake in the information needed or the person in captivity. A loved one might be in danger, or the captive might have injured or killed somebody close to them. That is where the line between gathering info and exacting revenge becomes blurred. Furthermore, the captive might not even be guilty like in Rendition. If they are in fact guilty then an innocent man or woman might be tortured for no reason. Plus, they would definitely give incorrect information if they were innocent.
okay. Good job.
ReplyDelete