While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
Physical torture is pressuring
…show more content…
There may be religious fanatics that will be harder to persuade, but if you result to beating them up, they’ll tell someone about anything to make them stop. Applebaum applies solid logical appeals once again, making light of the fact that if one won’t cooperate anyway, why beat them? Levin would have issue with that statement, providing an informal poll of new mothers. Levin asked if their child was abducted, would they want to use torture to have their child returned. He claims all said yes, and the “most liberal” adding she would want to torture the abductor herself. On the surface, Levin has made a strong emotional appeal with these new mothers, but has made the error of asking a person that is extremely attached to the child that they have just given birth to. When analyzed, the poll can be seen as a cheap way to confirm his view due to a mother’s strong emotional connection to a …show more content…
Applebaum has plenty of evidence to back up her claim that physical torture is not effective, and there are many other ways to obtain information. While the fear-encouraging and questioning elements are potent to many who are afraid of terror committed against them, but when the overwhelming sentiment of Levin’s argument is being compared to the logic and ethical points of Applebaum it is clear to see the superiority of her argument. Although Levin would advocate for physical torture in extreme situations, one must expect extreme consequences. Physical torture is rarely effective, violates rights, and damages a whole nation’s credibility. This is why physical torture should not be
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
Malcolm Nance, has personally experienced waterboarding and uses ethos and logos to emphasize his experiences. From his experiences in the military, Nance, who was at the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks and has been part of the SERE program since 1997, has come to several conclusions as to why waterboarding is ethically and logically wrong. His reasons include that, logically, waterboarding is a form of torture used intentionally. They allow use of it on their enemies; but despite it being controversial, America’s judicial system has persecuted outsiders who have used it against Americans. It is also used as an unethical way to obtain information from enemy prisoners of wars, but that does not always guarantee that all of the information is of any use and or reliable.
I feel as if the pain that a criminal would feel from being tortured, without any moral or ethical considerations, is worth it if it saves a life that would otherwise be lost. One response to the Dirty Case is that interrogative torture, such as the technique used by the officer on the kidnapper, is not effective. Steinhoff argues that this is incorrect because sometimes the torturer does get what he is looking for as in the Dirty Harry case. To further defend against this response, Stein a One-Million-Pains-To-One-Kill-Gun argument. With this argument, essentially a person is being shot at by an aggressor and is eventually going to be hit unless they were to fire a gun with a 1 in 1 million chance of immediately stunning the aggressor to avoid being killed.
Marzieh Ghiasi is a female Muslim college student who wrote a rebuttal to Levin 's Case for Torture where she uses logic to deconstruct his argument and prove that torture is not an acceptable practice. Both of their papers are good arguments and have great points to support them, but ultimately, I would say that Levin’s argument on torture being morally acceptable is the better argument. Levin uses many examples and devices to fill his article with Pathos as Ghiasi has a Logos approach but doesn’t have very many devices throughout her article to support her argument. Levin uses many hyperbolic situations that he uses to explain when and why torture would be acceptable.
Levin believes it is efficient way to get information from terrorists. In his example of the atomic bomb in Manhattan, Levin makes the point that millions of lives are worth more than the life of the person who is causing the threat. He believes that torture should only be used to require information, not as a punishment for the already guilty. He also believes that the prisoner should be obviously guilty. When Levin asked the mothers if torture would be okay in the instance that they took their baby, would it be okay?
Web. 08 Feb. 2016. In this report the author explain that many CIA agents believe that physical torture is not as effective as psychological torture. For example, leaving them naked in front of other people will
Dershowitz argues that there are two ways to deal with a ticking bomb terrorist, besides doing nothing and letting innocent people die. These options include continuing to torture behind closed door or to utilize torture and make this information open to the
In the novel “1984” by George Orwell, the Inner Party uses cruelty in a politically and socially effective way by using methods such as torture, starvation, imprisonment, and room 101 as crucial motivation for those being tortured to not only confess but repent of their sins against the party. Furthermore, the use of cruelty by the Inner Party unveils both the victim and perpetrator’s inner conscience. The use of cruelty throughout “1984” by the Inner Party and O’Brien reveals how cruelty functions in the work as a means of oppression and a catalyst of subservience.
The depiction of torture as the only form of interrogation hurts the
In Christopher Hitchens, “Believe Me, Its Torture”, Hitchens describes his experience with waterboarding with the purpose of convincing society that this practice is indeed a torturous punishment. The maltreatment practice of “waterboarding” has been controversial for many years; therefore, in order to convince the audience that waterboarding is torturous, Christopher Hitchens undergoes this practice not only once, but twice. The author uses his personal experience to illustrate the mental, physical, and emotional stress he goes through during the process. In Christopher Hitchens, “Believe Me, Its Torture”, Hitchens effectively uses pathos and logos as well as many different rhetorical strategies to persuade society that waterboarding is not acceptable; that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
In 2003 the US military relied on the confession taken from Sheikh al-Libi in which it was claimed that Iraq supplied both chemical and biological weapons to Al Qaeda. This testimony was used in the month leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Later al-Libi retracted his statement saying that he did so in order to make the torture stop. This is a clear example of the ineffectiveness of torture and the bad consequences it can often produce. The CIA had forgotten its own conclusion, sent to congress in 1989, that ‘inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.’
Mr. Nance has played a part in the attacks of al Qaeda since the early 1990s and Hitchens states the many points that Mr. Nance makes to persuade anyone to believe waterboarding is torture. The author brings in special forces to argue that waterboarding is a punishment used for special forces not U.S. citizens. Accordingly, Hitchens demonstrates imagery, metaphors, and tone to persuade the audience waterboarding is indeed
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
Torture is universally prohibited in both national and International law worldwide. It is a fundamental violation of human rights that cannot be derogated from. Essentially, torture is said to constitute any physical and mental act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted upon a person ( UNCAT).Torture is mainly used for purposes that are set out to degraded, embarrass, and induce destruction in the person being subjected to torture and those in close relation to the person being tortured .Torture is a mechanism used by those in authoritative positions to preserve themselves in power (Power, 2006:2). Despite the universal prohibition on torture, its use has been widespread throughout history, and especially of late in the wake of September 11 2001 and other recent terrorist atrocities to combat the aforementioned heinous terrorist attacks.