Minor Analysis Paper #1: Part 1

Torture Summary

Issues surrounding torture and its use have been circulating since the news of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay surfaced years ago. Much of the controversy is over defining torture and distinguishing or associated it with the “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are used by the CIA. A government’s stance on this issue reflects how their citizens and international community view them and how they are defined as people. It in many ways torture is an ethical argument; character and values are judged. Everyone tends to agree that future is at stake in this debate.

In discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been the ethical aspect of torturing. On one hand, the Bush administration has selectively defended its use of “enhanced interrogation techniques (described by some as torture)” on the grounds of national security and saving Americans from future attacks. That side argues that terrorists abuse POWs and citizens, so terrorists should constitute a category that is not covered by international and human rights laws. On the other hand, the UN vehemently bans torture under any circumstance. Its convention against torture defines torture and internationally opposes any “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Others, through religious organizations, oppose the use of torture from an ethical/Christian moral standpoint. Thirty-six religious leaders through the National Religious Campaign Against Torture united to end torture in the US. Others believe that torture is necessary. They believe that it is justified to sacrifice a few extremists’ comfort to save a disproportionate number of people. My own view is that torture under any circumstance is unethical and should not be allowed, especially by America.