Terrorism is an actual and relevant threat to national security that requires an incisive strategy to fight it. Along this paper, I demonstrate that torture is not the right solution to respond to terrorism, whereas surveillance might be a better and acceptable proposal. Several scholars and politicians have either widely sustained or contested both issues.
In my opinion, torture does not ensure success in fighting terrorism while it inflicts unbearable sufferance. I provide six arguments to demonstrate that torture should not be taken into account at all. They are related to morality, law, effectiveness, and many other subjects. Torture is one of the most tremendous techniques adopted by ...view middle of the document...
On the contrary, people unconsciously fear terrorism and to protect themselves, or for any other reason, they do what several images of American soldiers in Iraq witness. The drastic change in America’s attitude to foreign and defence policies after 9/11, which became very aggressive, proves that citizens simply wanted to avenge. Since it is evident that emotionality is not the right path, torture cannot be justified because of other threats. It has to be addressed in a rational way.
Most value systems evaluate torture immoral because of the sufferance that inflicts to other human beings. For example, European countries, and their fundamental philosophical conceptions, took centuries to overcome the idea of torture, but it is quite undisputable today. We refuse the idea of deliberately inflicting so much pain to another man, whatever is the reason. In addition, it is very dangerous to disregard our moral values to fulfil certain goals like terrorism. If we admit the use of torture, we could reintroduce death penalty and chemical weapons as well. Even though some states did not sign the treaties against them, those practices are internationally blamed and refused. It is a way to stop infamous acts that humans have been committing for centuries. For example, even in war, when humans become evil, our morality has led us to agree on a set of rules to avoid most atrocious things. Following moral values, torture has to be refused.
Rejecting moral conceptions, it might be asserted that the end justify the means. If there is no morality that stops it, apparently there are no reasons not to torturing terrorists. However, a blind utilitarian approach cannot be applied to torture. If I have to ponder what is more important, I do value life more than national security purpose. Nevertheless, many people believe that the main purpose, which is clearly different from mine, could justify any means. For instance, a CIA agent confessed that his job is out of both domestic and international law. This case witnesses how US interests go beyond morality and acceptable paths. Besides, Professor A. Dershowitz supports the use of torture in case an airplane would be going to crash into a skyscraper, since citizens’ security, the end, is more worth it than the mean, torture. I am strongly against the idea that torture could be out of any value because it guarantees some valuable purposes. All other possible means should be used to prevent the disaster expect torture. Moreover, following this reasoning, even terrorists are perfectly right when they use violence to achieve their goals. Thus, even from a utilitarian point of view, if we recognized torture we should accept terrorists’ intentions, which is evidently against our interests. It is clear that the concept that the end justifies the means does not work at all.
The fact that torture is an unjust way to inflict pain can be explained through law. First, it is not sure that it leads to true results, whereas it...