Torture lite

What is “torture lite” the term, coined by the popular media, refers to

sophisticated interrogation techniques that do not cause any clearly

visible physical harms, as do more traditional forms of torture. Example

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

of torture lite include sleep deprivation ,isolation, standing in stress

position, noise bombardment ,humiliation, mock executions ,and

subjecting the prisoner to heat and cold. Another notorious method is

called water boarding: the suspect head is dunked into water or his head

is wrapped in a wet towel to include the sensation of drowning. In

contrast to traditional forms of torture in which pain is directly inflicted

upon the victim by the interrogator techniques do not require contact

between the interrogator and the victim at all.

Advances interrogation techniques are employed by a number of

democratic government, including the United States, as well as France a

d the United kingdom. These methods are mainly used for the purpose of

intelligence gathering. Democratic government do not permit the more

classic form of torture because the Geneva convention forbids them.

Torture lite, as some argue, is this the only legal resort and is sometimes

necessary to prevent even greater harm. One important reason for

employing lite techniques, for instance, has been to prevent future

terrorist attacks. Since 9/11, the use of these techniques has become

more common. Torture lite has particular gained notoriety because of its

employment at Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib.

The primary defense for using these techniques is utilitarian in nature.

It’s supporter argue that by subjecting prisoners to these techniques we

can gain important information that can prevent great harm to society.

Thus, the pain and suffering of one individual (or a few) is pinned

against the potential suffering of the many. This justification is often

called the “ticking bomb scenario”: imagine that there is a ticking bomb

hidden somewhere that threatens to kill millions of people, and the only

way to find the bomb and prevent these death is to apply torture lite to

  • the individual who knows where the bomb is hidden. Wouldn’t you be

    willing to torture the individual in such a situation.?

    In reply to this scenario, Georgetown law professor David Laban has

    over some interesting challenges. According to Luban, this scenario

    makes some assumption that are seldom-if ever-met in reality . In the

    scenario for instance it is assumed that we know for sure that the suspect

    has all of the information we need but when is that ever actually the

    case? If we really don’t know what the suspects might be able to reveal,

    could we still be justified in torturing that individual as long as the odds

    of getting that needed information high enough? How high should those

    odds be? Is 50/50 sufficient? Could torturing someone when there is just

    a 20% chance of success still be justified if enough is at stake? Should

    the question of torture be a game of odds in the first place? Also, how

    many individuals could we justifiably subject to torture lite because even

    the later can cause permanent psychological and physical harm.

    Standing in stress positions, for instance, can cause swollen ankles,

    blistering on the feet, and an increased heart rate. Carried far enough, it’s

    kind of eventually lead to kidney failure and heart attack. Sleep

    deprivation, meanwhile, can produce delusions, and in some cases, these

    delusions May remain heaven after deprivation has ceased. Torture lite

    can also cause post-traumatic stress disorder to such severity that the

    victim may never be able to function as a normal member of society.