Torture

Brutality, degradation, inhumane treatment, cruelty, these are the words that are often ascribed to the act of torture, whatever form it maybe. The mere intention to conduct these actions reveals a complicated double standard (Fiala, 103). People would opt to be the punisher, the powerful, the dominant rather than being punished, being weak and being dominated by someone else. It might not generally surmise human nature but it reveals the fact that humans in a society would always aspire for the top position in the ladder.

To this end, it is not surprising why some people support torture, most specifically, when they are not the one who is being (or will be) tortured. On the other hand, people also tend to display compassion and sympathy to other human beings. This is the basis of the deontological morality expressed by Immanuel Kant. This essay would try to explore the nature of torture and present an evaluation of the ethical values involved. The subject of the essay would be based on the discussion of torture in the documentary by Alex Gibney entitled ‘Taxi to the Dark Side’.

The main argument would be that ‘torture is morally impermissible’ nonetheless the essay would also try to determine the reason behind the act of torture especially with regards to the incident in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interrogation is the basic means to attain ‘intelligence’ or first-hand information that are vital in the prevention of danger such as war/s and terrorism. It can also be use to gain knowledge of the culprit behind certain crimes. One, need not to be involved in an actual warfare or crime to understand the concept involved in interrogation.

However, it is also a common knowledge that some information gathered through interrogation may not be valid. One cannot establish the factuality of a certain statement that people ‘spill out’ during interrogations. In some cases, ordinary interrogation techniques are futile since the person being interrogated may not be willing to cooperate. These instances coupled with an urgent need for the ‘information’ usually calls for a ‘forceful’ kind of interrogation.

In the context of this essay, the type of interrogation is known as ‘torture interrogation’ (Casebeer, 263). In the documentary ‘Taxi to the Dark Side’, torture interrogation is portrayed as a technique used to gather information from supposedly terrorists. It involves long hours of standing, sleep deprivation, use and application of physical force, humiliation and other maltreatments that would fall under CID or acts of ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’ treatments (Luban).

Casebeer (264), explained that torture interrogations encompass the strategy that involves ‘severe physical and/or mental pain’ (I believe that emotional or psychological pain can also be present especially during humiliation and inducement of fear) that is inflicted on its ‘victim’, that is done by certain ‘perpetrators’ such as ‘interrogators and/or soldiers’ and are designed to reach a goal such as to ‘extract information and confessions’. The ethical considerations that torture interrogation presents are grounded on the fact that (in most cases) during ‘torture interrogations’ the person is not yet convicted ‘guilty’ (Fiala, 109).

Torture, in its own terms, has long been considered as an immoral act. Nevertheless, torture as a type of punishment can be justified since the ‘victim’ of torture is ‘guilty’ of a certain crime which could have been worst than the punishment (torture) in itself. The possibility of torturing an innocent individual creates a moral debate regarding the permissibility of torture. The utilitarian principle requires the maximization of happiness and minimization of unhappiness as standard for morality.

In the ‘ticking time-bomb’ scenario, as mentioned by Casebeer (271) and in the documentary by Gibney, a bomb is placed in a certain field or establishment and only one person (a terrorist or the bomber) knows how to locate and defuse the bomb. If the bomb explodes, several people will be affected or will die, thus, all necessary parameters are to be taken to extract the relevant information from that person (terrorist or bomber). Torturing one person to be able to save more number of people is of course considerable.

But it should not be taken for granted that this argument is ‘hypothetical’. In reality, this situation may not even exist. Deontological ethics focus on a person’s duty which implies the respect for another person’s rights. People, according to this ethical framework, should not be treated as means rather as an end (Casebeer, 266). In torturing another person to extract information that would benefit more people denotes using that other person as means. Whether the person is guilty or innocent, torture interrogation would still involve disrespect to the other person’s right and humanity.

In reflecting on the documentary, a taxi driver nicknamed Dilawar died of homicide due to ‘blunt force of injuries to lower extremities that complicates coronary artery disease’ as a result of ‘torture interrogation’. The documentary elaborated that Dilawar is not-guilty. Furthermore, the documentary also highlighted that 93% of the suspected terrorists are turned over to the United States forces to gain bounties or rewards. It also turned out that Dilawar is included in this 93%. With these in mind, the act of torture interrogation is blatantly immoral.

Despite the fact that legal documents and loopholes can be found to justify the act of ‘torture interrogation’ as can be deduced from documents, such as the memorandum for William J. Haynes II dated March 14, 2003, torture interrogation is morally impermissible. To better justify this position, Fiala argued about the possibility of the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy that might result if torture terrorism would be justified and practiced in ‘extreme cases’ or ‘supreme emergencies’ (quoted by Fiala from Walzer). According to Fiala, politicians or people who are granted the necessary authority to conduct torture terrorism might abuse their power.

As Fiala states, ‘when political agents makes exceptions to moral principles, these exceptions can become precedents that serve to normalize immoral behavior’. In ‘Taxi to the Dark Side’, there is an argument regarding the slippery slope phenomena that transpired during the change in the ‘interrogation methods’ for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. According to the documentary, the changes in the interrogation techniques are only applicable in Guantanamo. Nonetheless, the ambiguity and loopholes that surrounds the issue resulted to the application of the interrogation techniques to Iraq.

The danger of the slippery slope is when the technique is applied to innocent individuals. The documentary also mentioned that there are other prisoners that are sent to Guantanamo or in places outside the United States that permits torture interrogation because this methodology is illegal in the United States. After the discussion of the moral impermissibility of torture interrogation, it might be obvious to some people that torture interrogation is wrong. However, the question ‘why are there people who conduct such immoral acts’, might linger to a person’s mind.

‘Taxi to the Other Side’ illustrates the confusion and the pressure that interrogators undergo during the ‘War against Terrorism’. Most of the pressure comes from the government, the need to justify an attack or the arrest of a person. Another source of pressure, as explained in the documentary, comes from other soldiers. As one soldier testified ‘I don’t want to go against my fellow soldiers’. Fiala (101) described the possibility of this situation as ‘a political pressure to take decisive and dramatic actions without regard for moral niceties’.

This essay concludes that torture interrogation is morally impermissible based on the utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks. Humans should be treated as humans. Punishments should be carried out effectively and justly. Torture interrogation does not treat humans humanely. Moreover, torture of the innocent is highly unacceptable under moral precepts. A clearer guidance on the interrogation process must be devised to be able to minimize the dangers of slipping down the use of torture interrogation specifically when there is a high pressure to produce information.

Legal justifications are not enough to excuse or validate the use of torture during interrogation. It merely served as evidence that the legal standards are flawed and needs immediate repair (reconstruction/revision). References Casebeer, W. D. (2005). “Torture Interrogation of Terrorists”. Fiala, A. (2008). “Torture and Terrorism”. Gibney, A. (2007) “Taxi to the Dark Side”. Luban, D. (2005). “Torture, American Style”. Office of Legal Counsel. (2003). “Torture Memo”.

As the book opens, a group of private investigators in Brazil kidnaps an American named Patrick Lanigan, a former Biloxi, Miss., lawyer who stole $90 million from his firm, and avoided capture for more than four years. Patrick changed his looks and didn t live that opulent life style of a millionaire as they thought he would be.

By the time the F.B.I found out that private investigator had caught Patrick, he was half-dead, there was no mercy on him. Patrick s body had burns all over where they tortured him. After the F.B.I frightened Jack to put in jail if he won t bring him Patrick in whole peace tortures stopped and Patrick was moved from Brazil to a hospital in America for a full recovery.

Patrick has allegedly faked his own death in a car accident, and watched his own funeral from a distant tree. He then altered his appearance by losing 50 pounds, having plastic surgery and changed his name to Danilo Silva.

Patrick’s family and colleagues reacted differently as they notified that he was alive. His widow wife who lived very happy after she collected money from Life Insurance and inheritance that Patrick left for her. She bought a beautiful house, a new car, and lived with her lover Lance. They were so scared that now their new life in jeopardy that they began to plane Patrick s murder. Patrick’s greedy law partners, still practicing though officially bankrupt because of his theft, are ecstatic because they may yet retrieve a good part of the $90 million he stole.

People didn t waist their time and while Patrick was recovering he managed to get himself indicted for capital murder, sued for divorce, stolen money, plus punitive damages, sued for thirty million by his old law firm buddies, sued by Insurance company, plus another ten million in punitive for good measure.

Patrick opened up to his lawyer and law school friend Sandy McDermott and to another old friend, Karl Huskey, now a judge. He also made a new friend one of his nurses to whom he paid for taking pictures of his burst body.

Patrick had an associate: Eva Miranda, a lawyer in Rio who’s been moving Patrick’s $90 million through an international assortment of banks only she can identify. Following the elaborate plan Patrick worked out years before, Eva vanishes the moment of his kidnapping so that even he, under torture, couldn t tell the bad guys where she or the money might be. He does, however, reveal Eva’s existence and role in the scheme, which means that Stephano and the FBI are now after her, not him.

The climax of the story comes when Patrick who was acquitted of all crimes in exchange of returning all the money finally becomes a free man. However when, he tries to locate Eva and start their knew lives together he learns that she has disappeared with everything he owned. Patrick went through hardship of fake identity, cutting out all his contacts with people he lived all his live, went through torture, abuse, pain, and fear; all for the sake of quite life with a person he loved, but it all disappeared in front of his eyes.

What ideas is the author trying to make?

The author tries to explore the issues that people deal with on daily basis; the good and the bad. Through out the book we read about the characters and experience their behavior and deeds to determine who is really good and who is automatically bad. In addition, John Grisham touches on the issue of justifying stealing. From the story we learn that such issues exists not just among crooks, but also among simple people who see money as the way of changing their lives. These people are willing to take drastic actions in order to achieve their goal.

At the beginning of the book the author shows seemingly bad characters the partners of the law firm where Patrick used to work. These people were able to get their hands on the big settlement and as a result were behaving very unethically by showing their superiority to other lawyers and people in the city. On the other hand, we see Patrick who also was a partner in the firm, but was caught out of the deal. He is shown as a moral man, who also hates behavior and the life style of his colleagues.

However, all of the sudden things change. The partners are now the victims; their lives, reputation, and livelihood destroyed. Whereas Patrick, who is now a criminal for stealing the money is still regarded as a positive figure. This reinforces the idea that there is more to good and bad than people s actions. There are other circumstances involved and only by looking at each situation from all perspectives, can one reach a conclusion. This is an important idea because it contradicts the common practice of judging people solely by their actions.

Another idea that author deals with is that people who commit crimes maybe able to justify them. Patrick s character justifies two issues; the first is the theft, and the second is his faked death. He reasons that stealing wasn t a crime because Patrick s partners didn t really deserve it, and that the money belonged to whoever got it first. Justifying faking his own death Patrick rationalized that his wife would be better off with the money from the life insures than left with nothing after his disappearance. These ideas are very real because people always try to justify their actions despite to their consequences.

Why did you like or dislike this book?

I truly enjoyed reading this book. I had a hard time putting it down. It has an unusual twist ending, which was so unexpected. However, I was a little bit disappointed with it.

First, I couldn t help but compare this book with John Grisham s previous novels. In contrast with his previous legal thrillers, which usually set in the courtroom; The Partner is set just about everywhere else. I also felt the boob was lacking Grisham s famous courtroom dramas and a character of an ambitious lawyer.

Grisham is very good at developing a story and making it rich with other little sub-stories. This book deals with lawyers, bad marriages, and the value of good friendship in a cruel and lonely world. We also sense a great deal of crookedness but the book does not really discuss it. I liked that the author did not really go deep into a social problem of the character. Here you appreciate Grisham as the book reads itself. You do not have to make any effort. He brings a lot of characters into the picture but you never lose your concentration. He stays shallow and does not go into deep maintaining a wide array of personalities and little related stories attached to his hero. The characters are rather forgettable but the plot is a survival tale so rich that it stays with you for a while.

I was impressed with this book even though it’s a departure from the usual Grisham fare and I hope he decides to write a sequel to explain the maddening ending.

Why did you read this book?

I read this book because John Grisham is one of my favorite authors, and I am trying to read all his books. When I read on the back of the book, I thought right away that I had to read it.

The reason I like John Grisham is because he writes very thrilling books. John Grisham has an ability to capture the reader into a net full of mysteries, which always keep me on edge. I read John Grisham s biography, and I know that he used to be a lawyer before he became a writer. I think his experience makes his books very realistic and even educational. In addition I like John Grisham s books because his style makes him unique and very enjoyable to read.

Characters

Patrick Lenigan is the main character of the story. The entire plot revolves around him.

At the beginning of the book the author presents Patrick as a negative character. He is a thief, a criminal but gradually he became a victim.

During course of the book we learn that Patrick and Danilo are the same person. Danilo was a Brazilian who lived in a small town called Ponta Pora and as we know packed ninety million dollars. He was happy but at the same time lived in fear that one day he would be caught. In contrast Patricks character was desperately searching for happiness.

Jake Stephano was a former Chicago detective with two degrees in criminology. He was a former high-priced bounty hunter, expert marksman, and a self-taught master of search and espionage. He owned a shady D.C. firm, which apparently charged huge fees to locate missing people. Jake Stephano was responsible for finding Patrick, torturing him, and handing him over to the FBI.

Eva Miranda was 31 years old Brazilian lawyer who associated in Rio law firm. Eva was Danilos friend and a lover. Through out the book Eva keeps contact with Patrick and helps him to handle his financial situation as well as to stay out of the jail. Eva s character appears as very strong woman, who can go through a lot for someone she really cares about. But like all human beans she had limits and was scared. At the end after all she has been through we see that the idea of having all the money to her self prevailed.

Sandy was Patrick s friend since the College days, and even though they worked in different places, they kept in touch. After Patrick s disappearance Sandy was very supportive and even helped to his wife to rehabilitate. After Sandy learned that Patrick was a live, he wasn t critical of his behavior and even agreed to represent him as his lawyer in courtroom.

Should females in the military be excluded from combat and other hazardous duties?

Should females in the military be excluded from combat and other hazardous duties? Women are gentle, they are caring and creators of life not destroyers of life.

Women have been thought of as possessing nothing in common with war. Women today have the opportunity to enlist in the military, they are not allowed to participate in combat units and fight. Who would trust a gun in the hands of a woman who is tender and vulnerable?Females should be excluded because they distract male soldiers could be captured and tortured, and physically or mentally aren’t capable of survival. Arguments favor women being excluded from front-line combat. The first argument is that females in combat roles are a distraction for male soldiers. The presence of females on the battlefield has an effect on the male soldiers. It can cause the male soldiers to be distracted causing them not to focus.

Many soldiers believe that they cannot have the same trust in women on the battlefield to perform their duties in combat fighting when it is at a critical time, as they do with fellow male comrades. Women and men involved in romantic relationships in combat units can disrupt the focus and capability to fight. Large percentages of women may become pregnant to escape combat duties. Females placed in combat units will affect the combat unit cohesion and the men who do not want to work with them. Many think that pregnant soldiers definitely affects them as combat ready. During the Gulf War pregnant soldiers could not serve.Many women after learning of their pregnancies after deployment to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm were sent home.

Several points of argument are by those who support women serving on the battlefield in combat units. Another argument is by those who are against women serving as well as the existence of the women in combat units and how it affects the male soldiers and vice versa. The next argument is females do not have the physical upper body strength or mental capacity needed to perform and cope with combat roles. There are physical differences that men and women have and also their differences in mentalities.Women have a less dense skeletal frame and more likely to have fractures. Women are at a higher risk for injuries related to exercises than men are. Women are twice as likely then men to sustain lower extremity injuries and five times as likely to have stress fractures.

On average women are smaller and shorter than men with 40 to 50% less strength in the upper body and 20 to 30% maximum oxygen consumption less aerobic capacity, essential for endurance. Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower than men, and it causes them not to have the stamina necessary to carry heavy equipment for long distances and as quickly as men.Women are more susceptible to becoming extremely tired. Women basically lack the physical strength and stamina essential to perform in direct combat. Women combatant can not carry the backpacks, equipment, weapons, and food the long distances to the combat lines. Because of this, it will be difficult to handle the extremely heavy military equipment used on the field; it would take them longer to manipulate guns, which would give the enemy the opportunity to shoot first. There would be problems whenever the need arises to carry the body of a wounded soldier off the battlefield.

Women are weaker than men and it causes women certain disadvantages in combat situations. It has been proven that when women are properly trained, they are as tough as the men. Women should be given the same rights as men to be in combat and fight for their country, provided that they pass the same standards of fitness evaluations as men. Women do not have the necessary mental strength to cope with the emotional and mental stress involved. Women will have problems handling the atmosphere of hostility and fear on the battlefield.Women, who are allowed to serve in combat roles can reduce the combat units’ effectiveness. When women are brought to combat units men stop relating to each other and start trying to receive the attention of the women.

The very high rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) called combat fatigue, or shell-shock) among the male soldiers would exemplify this. Thus in light of these arguments, it may seem to be a logical conclusion that women should not be allowed to fight in the front-line.The above arguments are what people traditionally think of women and are not facts but generalizations. In fact, it is not true for every woman. Most women do not possess the necessary physical strength, there are some strong enough to fight in combat and may even be able to pass the same fitness requirements as men. Combat is an extremely difficult time for every human being, whether woman, or man. The ability to cope with stressful situations is a characteristic that will vary rom person to person whether man or woman.

I believe it is not right to exclude women from fighting in combat duties based on their characteristics. Characteristics are possessed by women and men just to a different extent. Women are excluded out of combat duties because of generalizations. Women should be judged according to their personal characteristics and abilities. The most important reason females should be excluded from combat roles is that in combat units the females are at risk of capture.Female POWs are tortured, and possibly sexually assaulted. Female POWs will be subjected to the enemy’s techniques of threats of rape, rape, or other forms of sexual misconduct.

Although they are being held captive some are forced to work for the enemy. Female POW’s also may face unwanted pregnancies from rape and consensual sex while in captivity. Eighty seven women have been captured held as prisoners of war (POWs) in World War II, two women in Operation Desert Storm, and two women during Operation Iraqi Freedom (Valdosta. edu).Researchers have found over the last 40 years more females are in active duty then previous years, yet not in the front-lines. The statistics show the women on active duty and reserve and guard. The statistics also show women in military conflicts and prisoners of war.

womensmemorial. org No doubt there is much greater probability of acts of torture, sexual molestation, threats of rape, and rape with the existence of women on the front-line. Is it possible for men to be sexually molested or raped also? Even though it is possible, rape of a male is less likely (Bork, 2005). The thought of women tortured, sexually molested, and raped in captivity is a reason for excluding women from direct combat roles. Statistics show how women in the military sexually assaulted developed Post Traumatic-Stress Disorder. The following statistics illustrates this point.Combat PTSD  Lifetime occurrence (prevalence) in combat veterans 10-30%.

In the past year alone the number of diagnosed cases in the military jumped 50%- and that’s just diagnosed cases. Studies estimate that one in every five military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has Post Traumatic-Stress Disorder (PTSD). 20 % of the soldiers who have been deployed in the past 6 years have PTSD. That’s over 300,000. 17% of combat troops are women; 71% of female military personnel develop PTSD due to sexual assault. http://www. healmyptsd 400 U.

S. soldiers polled by researchers in Iraq decided by reasoning 31% females and 41% male soldiers stated that women should not be allowed in combat roles Charles Moskos.The stated consensus in the United States states women should not be in the front-line units and it does not appear that any changes to that policy are likely to happen. Women do not have the upper body strength or the maximum oxygen consumption, she has to take in necessary for heavy lifting, capable to sustain prolonged stressful effort and survival of being in a combat role (Bowman, 2005). The current version of the “ground combat exclusion policy,” by The Defense Department that was established in 1994, states: “Military personnel are able to be put in every position that they meet the qualifications for, with exception to women who will not be included to be assigned to combat units. ” Women are allowed below brigade level where combat is to take place, just not in combat arms battalions.The “ground combat exclusion policy” states that “direct combat” is fighting the enemy in a combat unit with fellow soldiers with weapons.

The enemy is shooting at the combat unit and fellow soldiers are trying to protect themselves from the enemy in self defense, whether it is from using physical force or firing back (Broadwell, 2009). Considering all the arguments, females should not be allowed to enter combat units even if they desire. Females risk the safety of their fellow comrades in combat units’ that can lead to poor judgment at a critical time. The presence of females in combat units’ can lead to fraternization, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.Females do not have the same physical strength as their male counterparts essential for endurance. Women are physically weaker than men and therefore standards would be lowered and the units’ effectiveness jeopardized. Females do not possess the necessary mental strength and therefore they aren’t able to cope with the mental and emotional stressors involved on the battlefield.

Women captured are raped repeatedly, tortured, and even become pregnant by their captors. Females in the military should be excluded from combat and all hazardous duties.