Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
As newspapers and documentary films continue to discuss waterboarding and other controversial treatments of suspected terrorists, the debate over torture remains intense. Some insist that desperate times call for desperate measures, but others are baffled that such methods could exist in a civilized society. Is physical persuasion ever an appropriate means of interrogation?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Intent and Just War Theory
Regarding the listed topic...
I'm going to be a bit silly and address the actual topic referred to in this article. In other words, I'm going to analyze the idea of Intent and Just War alone. Not morality, which there are plenty of other articles on (which are pretty comment-free now). Not history and religion. Just the theory here.
The "Intent" idea seems plausible to me. We aren't torturing because we want to, or at least I sure hope we aren't. Understandably, torture isn't a nice thing. But if there is a clear reason for doing so, and the consequences of not acting outweigh the consequences for acting, then I'm fine with that. Those sick persons who do torture people just for the fun of it, as far as I'm concerned, should be tried as war criminals and handily tossed out of the army. I don't deny that such incidences have occurred (malicious torture), but I think we can all agree that it is inexcusable and should never happen again.
The Just War theory is interesting, though I think the author should note that there are five criteria, not four (the fifth was that the war is defensive). In this case, however, a gray area emerges. A VERY gray area. Can a War on Terror be considered defensive? That's a semantics argument. The second qualifier, in response to grave and lasting damages, is again semantics. Grave, yes, but as far as lasting, grudges can be held for a long time. What exactly are we talking about? The third condition I'll call the "last resort" condition, and quite frankly I don't ever think that anything war-related should receive the title "last resort." It's questionable. The last two I am in total agreement with, though. If it's sure to get the desired results, and taking action is better than not taking action, absolutely. But again, this cannot be applied across the board in a single war. Individual circumstances must be considered separately.
In short, the theory here has some good points and some legalese points that could use elaboration. I support torture in certain, specific circumstances for certain, specific reasons. If there's no pressing, overly beneficial reason to, though, it shouldn't be done.
- Invalid Screen Name
February 28, 2009 9:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.