In party to look at it. If

In the essay “Case of Tortures” Michael Levin brings up a question of tortures. Whether tortures are necessary? On the one hand tortures for terrorists is the best decision for rescue of innocent lives, on the other hand it contradicts morals and the constitution. The educated societies completely reject introduction of tortures for terrorists, and those who try to do it imperceptibly risk to get great anger from the USA. Michael Levin considers that sometimes there are such moments when tortures become not only admissible, but also surely necessary. Reading his article, it is possible to tell that he completely supports the idea about tortures and gives arguments which are explained why tortures have to be. Despite it, many consider that tortures are a barbarity, past remnants, but it watching from what party to look at it. If to compare mass death of people and torture, then mass losses will seem much more terribly and more seriously than tortures. The terrorists planning the next plan consciously go on acts which involve many deaths, that is they realize everything that they are going to do. Innocent People who fall into hands of terrorists do it unintentionally because they are subject to influence of terrorists. Then why innocent people have to be responsible for acts of terrorists? Why innocent people, but not terrorists have to be exposed to tortures from terrorists? Michael Levin brings up such important thesis questions in the essay. ” Those who want to ban torture must accept responsibility for the murder of innocent people. We had better start thinking about this.” (Michael Levin). Such words Michael Levin it is possible to tell urges people to ponder upon the essence of this idea, the idea about tortures.
The being director of CIA George Tenet has developed the confidential program of tortures which basis was a fear. These tortures were similar to military tortures which plunged the person into the strongest fear. “Waterboarding”, “sensory deprivation”, “sleep deprivation” and “stress positions” was used. According to the general Tenet when developing an exact method of tortures, they knew what chaos and horror fills the person with dread. “Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character” (General Tenet). However, despite accurately developed program it has been closed. Tenet insisted that the program can’t be closed as it prevents terrorist attacks and saves human lives. Despite a set of arguments nobody knows what has been reached within this program, but all know consequences. Each captured terrorist served as small flash for emergence of a big fire. The Minister of Defence Donald Rumsfeld seriously thought of the fact that we create more terrorists, than we kill, and he has appeared the rights. It became really huge problem therefore ministers of the White House on this try to make everything not to allow CIA to make once again similar experiments and to secure the population. But at the moment, unfortunately, the American soldiers can expect anything because, trying to frighten off terrorists by means of introduction of tortures we, on the contrary, have brought closer them to ourselves. If to compare these established facts to the point of view of Michael Levin, then it is possible to tell that he completely hasn’t thought over all idea. He has given only idea heading, but hasn’t developed it up to the end. He hasn’t thought over all possible outcomes after introduction of tortures, but if to consider the facts about the general Tenet and his program, then it is possible to tell that the idea to torture terrorists would be failure.
If to imagine that thousands of human lives are subject to huge threat, then with confidence it is possible to tell that each American would agree with the idea of torture of the terrorist with the purpose to save innocent people and to prevent the possible victims. But, there are such cases when tortures have to be “not deadly” as there are such situations when terrorists put the lives and lives of the captured people. In this case it won’t turn out to apply tortures in full action as together with terrorists also innocent people will suffer. “Torture”—commonly defined as “the inflicting of severe pain to force information or confession”—comes principally in two varieties: physical (e.g., the “third degree”) and psychological (e.g., sleep deprivation). If to present that you in hands had had a terrorist who knows where a bomb is planted whether you will subject him to physical abuse? Of course, yes. If not to subject him to any tortures, then thousands of lives it can be killed, because of one person. It is called time bomb when there is almost no time left, but to save other people it is necessary to find out information. All know that on the person very great influence is exerted by pain therefore most often in such situations this exit will be used for the solution of a dangerous situation. But there are also such situations when the terrorist isn’t exposed to pain, accepting these facts we have only two options: to do nothing and to suffer from inconceivable consequences; or to torture information from the terrorist. Comparing this point of view to the point of view of Michael Levin it is possible to tell that tortures can be used, but only in extreme cases when really people are threatened by huge danger and the terrorist includes a so-called bomb of time.
Summarizing the result of all aforesaid I can tell that actually to use tortures or not to use it a question of global scale. But if to proceed from everything above-written, then tortures would be good motivation for one terrorist while for others they would serve, on the contrary, as an appeal to themselves. But nevertheless, in my opinion, the opinion can’t call this system ideal as any person can be accused and subject to tortures. We shouldn’t miss the fact that terrorists are the in advance trained people who are very thought over, clever, cunning. To set up the innocent person for them will be not a problem at all. But having fallen into hands of authorities the innocent person will be subject to tortures and as a result won’t be able to prove that it not he and him was substituted. It is very controversial and serious issue. History shows a set of examples when people found themselves guilty under the influence of tortures though the fault on them wasn’t. Authoritarian regimes can always use this fact subjecting democratic values and ideals to big threat. The practician of honest court and careful investigation will help to avoid torture of innocent people, however in the conditions of a lack of time the wrong conclusions and further the big victims are possible. However, intelligence agencies already successfully obtain information by means of secret-service networks and it show big efficiency. Many people are ready to suppress threat of terrorism at the price of generation of authoritative methods and systems subjecting even more people on big threat. Whether fight against terrorism can justify repressions in Algeria, Egypt, Russia? Unambiguously not.


I'm Casey!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out