| Article Submission |
|
| & 7,747 Current Users Online! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home » Categories » Society » Crime / Terrorism Prevention » Torture One To Save One Hundred: Would You Approve It? » Printer Friendly
|
|
Recently there has been quite a debate over what constitutes torture's definition. President Bushs advisors defined it as any act that results in organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" and should be punishable by law.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin tried to tie up torture by indicating that mild physical suffering and lasting mental anguish could be considered torture. Many against feel that any torture is wrong and immoral, but fail to define what is considered torture. Would knowing that September 11, 2001 could have been prevented by making one terrorist uncomfortable for 2 weeks by making him listen to loud heavy metal music be outside your personal definition of torture or inside the line?
International law as defined in Wikipedia.com defines torture as
"any act by which severe pain or suffering , whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." [1] http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
Whichever definition of torture you agree with will generally determine how you will answer or attempt to answer a specific question. If torturing one individual was the only way for you personally to save 100 lives, would you approve its use? I am not asking you to commit the act, for many would be squeamish or unfortunately unable to temper their cruelty once they started, but just be the one who approves the use of interrogation techniques that can be defined as torture.
The United States of America and its citizens must not delude themselves into thinking they are the world's moral conscience. Our better than you thought processes come after we, as a people, did our share of unspeakable acts of human brutality and torture. From the Salem witch trials, savage killings of Native Americans, dropping the most catastrophic nuclear device in history on Japan, and lynching of African Americans in our not too distant past, are we truly any better or more benevolent that others around the world? There are people in our country that inflict mental and physical torture on women and children every day. We are very good at making our principles fit the current situation.
So, I ask you again, if exposing a terrorist to extreme temperatures, simulating drowning with a wet towel over their face, treating them with less than human contempt, or committing some other creative interrogation technique that will not cause any permanent physical damage, would you approve its use to save 100 lives? How about 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? How many individuals would you allow to be treated this way until you felt you got good information? What if it simply would save one beloved family member in your own family? A little discomfort for one to save one and in the end both the terrorist and your family member lives. What is your torture limit?
Whether or not they will be affected mentally by an experience such as torture can be studied through those who experienced torture throughout the world. The Jewish people who lived through World War II, Senator John McCain, or a child who lived through sexual, mental, and physical abuse can all be scrutinized in studies of the human spirit and resiliency found in those who have experienced terrible things. Sadly we have many examples of senseless cruelty that human beings have inflicted upon each other, most of which is done for reasons other than to save lives through less than acceptable methods.
We should not be naive enough to think that a thoughtful, honest person can sit down with an individual determined to kill and inflict damage and get an answer by being nice, or a good listener. Please Timothy, we know you really don't want to kill those people, so please tell us where you put the bomb. After you tell us we can go for burgers and a couple sodas. I put faith in God's plan and pray for peace and harmony among the world's people, but the free will given us in the shadow God's grace and mercy many times results in mans inflicting horrors upon man. That is the world in which we live. "What would Jesus do?" He allowed himself with all the power given him by the Father to be nailed upon a cross.
So, what will it be, will you torture one to save many or deal with the act of violence and death that you, with a simple decision, could have prevented?
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
►Reprint Rights◄
|
Log in to become a member of Jon Searles's Fan Club!
Comments on this article:
|
|
| Send a private message to Jon Searles about this article. |
| Please Log In to Leave a Comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:
|
|
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization. |
|
|