Should Torture Be Acceptable?

The issue of torture is one of the foremost complicated issues within the modern social context.
The term “torture” implies any act by which serious torment or enduring, whether physical or mental, is
intentioned incurred on an individual for such purposes as getting from him or a third party data or a
confession, rebuffing him for an act he or a third party has committed or is suspected of having
committed.

Concurring to Rodley (2000), the torment can be characterized as, the formally endorsed curse
of strongly enduring, pointed at driving somebody to do or say something against his or her will. Such
torment or enduring is delivered by or at the instigator of or with assent or passive consent of an open
official or other individual acting in an official capacity. Despite of all inclusive condemnation of torment,
it is still utilized to extract confession, to interrogate and to punish or to scare. In police stations and jail
cells, on city roads and farther towns, torturers proceed to incur physical misery and mental anguish.
Their cruelty kills, damages and takes off scars on the body and mind that last for a lifetime. Even in the
current days, torture is still rampant in the form of hazing. It is a different term, but the process is still
the same where a person receives a brutal treatment from another person of the higher position over
them.

As the above mentioned statement, torture is an unreasonable course of action by higher rank
officials. Though torture could be a great help to extract information from the suspects, it is still immoral
because of the inhumane methods of torturing an individual. It also violates the human rights of a
person that are given equally to each member in the society. Incurring physical miseries and mental
anguish are both unacceptable action, whether it is implemented by a higher official to attain peace and
order. It is not acceptable in the modern society because of various reasons. The strongest of them
incorporate a high probability of tormenting guiltless individuals and the return to the standards of
totalitarian dictatorship, which is a significant step back in the social development of a highly civilized
society. Some people used torture to just make fun of someone they dislike as a symbol that they are
the superior, however, it is indeed morally wrong in any dimension to look at and it is the time that it
becomes unjustifiable due to the personal interest of doing such actions.

It ought to still be pointed out that during the Marcos regime back in 1970’s right from the
gracious war, riots did break out habitually. And the government of the day was able to quell these riots
through an institutional law which came with an overextending control over the resources of the state,
saw the Philippines utilized the same to fortify its foundation and create a strong economic model.
However, despite these positive effects of Marcos administration is the darkest chapter in the Philippine
history. His administration was notorious for its corruption, extravagance, and brutally, including the
inhumane way of torturing methods used by his officials. To begin with, there continuously exist a high
chance that the information received by means of torture would not be precise. It is specified on the
site; human rights first that “the application of mental, emotional, and/or physical pressure can force a
victim of torment to say anything just to end the painful experience” (statement of National Security).
With this evidence, torment gets to be a totally useless mean, since it does not only fail to get an
essential reason to get data, but it also advances viciousness against savagery, which negates both
ethical and lawful laws of humankind; torment is in fact not legitimized.
 The administration of President Donald Trump is allowing the government to open the
possibility of bringing back the technique of interrogating such as waterboarding. According to Oxford
dictionary, the definition of waterboarding is an interrogation technique simulating the experience of
drowning, in which a person is strapped, face up, to a board that slopes downward at the head, while
large quantities of water are poured over the face into the breathing passages. Trump has stated that
torture is a technique to gain information or interrogate suspects that a police force fail to achieve. He
wants to bring back waterboarding technique which he thinks is possible and legal. Based on the former
president of the United States, waterboarding isn’t considered as torture but was opposed because it is
one of the most traumatic technique of torture. However, the thought of drowning a detainee to
interrogate, to intimidate them somehow degrades a person’s dignity even though someone have done
something wrong. The police force should still be fair of the fact that those detainees are still human and
deserves to be respected of their human rights. Those criminals should be responsible for their violation
of the laws and should be properly penalized and interrogated in the court and not with the use of
torture. They should not torture them and just give them the justice to be still respected as a person, as
a human being. On the other side, as a support with regards to torture as unjustifiable, it was opposed
that is indeed one of the most traumatic technique of torture. Scientists have stated that torture doesn’t
work and that it impairs one’s memory and can cause a mental illness. Two groups of scientists were
saying that Trump should give up the thought of bringing back this type of interrogation. They could not
accept this proposal because it has been long banned that is considered as illegal and inhumane.

Gina Haspel is a Central Intelligence Agency or CIA Director. CIA is an agency on providing
information for the president and its cabinets. Gina Haspel has been considered as a pro to torture since
then. In the year 2018, Haspel’s hearing she was asked about Boston bombing in the same year if it is
immoral what they have done to those terrorists that they have captured during the bombing incident.
“Senator, I believe that the CIA did an extraordinary work to prevent another on this country, given the
legal tools that we were authorized to use.” “Senator, I believe we should hold ourselves to the moral
standard outline in the Army Field Manual.” “Senator, what I believe sitting here today is that I support
the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.” With these statements, the public
thinks or consider that Gina Haspel is pro to torture. The above statement of Haspel, the general public
thinks that with all of her statements that she supports torturing that the president wants to implement
in the country. However, despite what Haspel’s point that torture can quell the conflict against civil war,
it may still inflict further conflict in the country once people realize that the form discipline implemented
by the government might be a counterpart with the human rights one country is continuously
implementing. According to Senator John McCain, senate president in USA court of appeal, who is
present in Haspel’s hearing, and heard about her idea to torture. He considered it as an immoral thing to
do which is ineligible. Torture is still torture. Also, he strongly contradict the statement of Gina Haspel
that torture is the only way to generate and receive information from an individual. Moreover, he view
torment as not acceptable in the society’s eyes because any form of torture is degrading an individual’s
human rights that may emanate economic destruction such as people’s revolution against injustice
system carry out by the local government.
(Mga PS ko. I’m not saying na magaling or maganda gawa ko ah. Just saying these because I’m really confused. Delete these
after reading, plz. Tsaka feeling ko masyadong sunud-sunod yung “”s hihe. And yung iba parang dire-diretso. Yung start from
senator until torture is still torture, parang nag-according siya pero wala siyang sinabi sa sentence? I’m very very sorry. I know
I’m not magaling coz I still ask(s?) everything from you eh. Forgive me hehe.)