We began discussing in class whether torture during a war was acceptable and, if commited, who should be punished for the acts. Judging by comments in class, I am sure most of you will disagree with me on the topic of torture. However, it is necessary to hear both sides of an argument to fully understand your own opinion. I believe that torture can be an effective strategy in a time of war.
We have all heard the saying, "All is fair in love and war," and I completely agree with those words. War is not a fun experience, it is not fair, or gentle; war is brutal. When someone is captured in a time of war, I would feel safer at home knowing that our soldiers are doing everything necessary to get any information that they can out of these prisoners. If they need to torture someone to get critical information that could help the war , then by all means torture should be used. Don't get me wrong, I would hate for our soldiers to be tortured, but our soldiers are not forced into joining the war forces. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into by joining the army or the marines, etc. Our soldiers are valiant and brave, not stupid; they know what can happen to them. As an example, John McCain knew that during war time there was the possibility of capture and torture. Both of which, he endured.
"A new study suggests that abuse of prisoners of war is widely condoned by many veterans, and possibly by many in the military today. Even rape of a prisoner was judged acceptable by more than half of the 351 participants in the study," (Holmes). This study may or may not surprise you. Eighty-four percent of the veterans in the study agree that many forms of torture are acceptable during war (Holmes). These are the men and women who have experienced war first hand and know what it is like. Citizens back home do not have the same experiences and therefore, can not judge the acceptability of any act during war. Only those who are in the midst of such can begin to understand the need for such drastic measures.
What is worse, mass murder or torture? "Torture and inhumane treatment may be wrong, but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one" (Twisted Logic). Let us look at the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario (Uelmen); Military personnel have captured a terrorist that has placed a bomb in a huge metropolitan area. He says there is not enough time to evacuate the city before he activates the bomb. Military personnel know from past experience that through torture they can get information out of the terrorist. Would you rather they torture the terrorist to get the information to find the bomb and deactivate it, or would you prefer them to be humane and let the entire metropolitan city be blown to pieces?
Torture can be very effective during war. We can gain information we would not have been able to without it. Torture is not the same as killing; torture can heal. War is a terrible thing, and there is no way to keep wars humane. Yet, if being tortured is an alternative, it may prevent many soldiers from being murdered needlessly. During drastic times such as war times, we often need to take drastic measures. Torture may be one of those drastic measures.
Works Cited
Holmes, William C.. "Would You Condone Torture in War?." ABC News 14 Feb 2007 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .
"The Twisted Logic of Torture." Darfur and Abu Ghraib Jan 2005 1. 25 Nov 2008 .
Uelmen, Amy. "Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb." Living City 31 July 2006 7-9. 25 Nov 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment