联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写coursework,Use of Torture
发表日期:2013-09-17 08:35:39 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写coursework > 正文
Introduction

This report aims to, in the first instance, define torture. It then examines the history of torture and looks at international law that relates to torture.   The main part of the study analyses ethical theories in relation to torture and uses these ethical viewpoints to examine whether or not torture can be justified in any circumstances.  In addition, the Algerian War and the Iraq War will be used as case studies to further discuss the ethical issues surrounding torture.  Conclusions will be drawn and the author’s answer to the question ‘can the use of torture ever be justified?’ will be given, based on the findings in the rest of the report.

Limitations of Study

This study has its limitations.  First of all, only two case studies are used.  There are numerous cases of torture throughout the world and throughout history that could be utilised.  In doing so, perhaps a different conclusion would be made. 

As torture is such an emotive subject it is difficult to ensure that the facts are truly represented.  Before the nineteenth century some countries publicly acknowledged torture as an instrument of judicial inquiry, however today the vast majority of countries where torture is practised will blankly deny any knowledge of it.  This, of course, makes a study of torture difficult.

In addition, as will be seen, there are numerous, conflicting ethical theories that can be applied to the topic of torture.  A person’s personal beliefs will influence how much credence they give to each viewpoint.  Consequently, the author’s opinions are likely to differ from the reader’s. 

Definition of Torture

Torture has a widely understood definition of causing someone severe pain or mental anguish, usually in order to gain some information from the person being tortured, most usually a confession. 

Amnesty International state that ‘torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain in any form by one person on another, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter’ (Klayman, 1978, p482).  This definition encompasses both physical and mental pain.   It also notes that torture has a purpose, and does not allow torture for the sake of the torturer’s amusement. 

The Commission for the European Convention on Human Rights defines torture simply as ‘deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious or cruel suffering’ (Morgan & Evans, 1999, p95).  It offers examples of forcing people to adopt a stress position in rooms where there is a continuous loud hissing noise, hooding, and deprivation of food and water.

The Commission for the European Convention on Human Rights’ definition is the author’s preferred definition.  This is because it defines torture, not by the torturer’s intentions, but by the effect the treatment has on the tortured.  

A Brief History of Torture

The word torture often conjures up images of medieval torture instruments such a branding irons and head screws.  From the mid fourteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century torture was an accepted practise by armies, judicial systems and even churches (Maran, 1989, p vii).  Public opinion changed in the nineteenth century, but torture continued to be carried out.  Once the torture of Jews by the Nazis in the Second World War became public knowledge, numerous international laws were bought into effect to prevent the use of torture.  However, torture still continues to this day, but as its use is still widely condemned, details of torture are either kept non-public, are down played or justified by manipulation of public opinion.  So called civilised countries are just as likely to be the perpetrators of torture today as countries with a known poor human rights record (Kellaway, 2003, p34).   

The International Context of Torture

International law currently absolutely and unequivocally prohibits torture in all circumstances.  There are many international laws and conventions that define torture as a crime against humanity.  These include The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights.  These two pieces of law are intended to work side by side.

The UN Committee Against Torture is a body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and other torture related law.  All member states are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).

Ethical Theories Applied to Torture

There are many and varied ethical theories that could be applied to the question, ‘can the use of torture ever be justified?’  Theories that conclude that torture is never acceptable will be examined first.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed Kantian Theory. It is based on the belief that reason is the final authority for morality.  A moral act is an act done for the right reasons (Lovell & Fisher, 2002, p314).  Kantian Theory is closely related to the doctrines of all major religions, the Bible states ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.  At the centre of Kantian ethics is his categorical imperative, which is a set of universal rules that outline ‘that only the good will, a will to act out of a sense of duty, has unqualified moral worth’ (Pojman, 1998, p194).

Using deontological theory, whereby actions are intrinsically right or wrong, torture can be seen to be unacceptable, whatever the circumstances and consequences.  Deontologists hold that one cannot undertake immoral acts like torture even if the outcome is morally preferable, such as the early ending of a war or the saving of lives.

Edmund Burke, the late eighteenth century writer and politician, accused the British of suffering from what he termed 'geographical morality' (Lee & Smith, 2004, p16).  ‘Geographical morality’ is when people are prepared to be shocked by and to condemn torture in other countries while condoning its practice by their own authorities.  The British are not the only ones to be guilty of this, many countries, especially in the West can be accused of ‘geographical morality’.   

However, there are many other theories that show that torture could be morally acceptable in some situations.

John Stuart Mill (1808-73) put forward an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be summed up in the phrase, ‘everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved’ (Almond, 1988, p127).  Using this theory, torture can be justified if it brings about a 'greater good for a greater number of people'.  The ends justify the means.  Using Utilitarianism Theory, if the torture of one person means that several people are located and rescued from a dire situation, then that torture is justifiable. 

Consequentialism offers the idea that torture is justifiable if the consequences of the torture are morally right.  Consequentialism is an ethical view that establishes the rightness or wrongness of actions by the good or bad produced by its consequences. 

Interlaced with the question ‘can torture ever be justified?’ is the question ‘can war ever be justified?’  As torture is an agent of war, this seems appropriate.  Just War Theory can be used to justify torture on the grounds that it is acceptable in response to certain situations.  St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) described ‘jus ad bellum’, the conditions that he believed has to be met for war to be justified.  War has to be ordered by a legitimate authority, it must be waged for a just cause and the intention of those who wage war should be the triumph of good over evil (Almond, 1998, p197).  Of course, the problem with utilising this Just War theory is that fulfilment of the conditions is subjective.  However, it is possible that torture could be morally justified using the Just War Theory if it was carried out by a legitimate government whose general aim is good and with the best of intentions.

The concept of proportionality is found in Acquinas' consideration of the Just War Theory. He argued that warring activity should be proportionate to the aggression made and therefore not excessive to that aggression.  This would imply that torture, an extremely aggressive warring activity, would be ethically acceptable in response to extremely aggressive actions. 

It can be argued that the intentions of a torturer make a difference to the moral value of the action of torture.  In consequentialist theories of ethics, intention is important, as intention is what you hope to achieve by the action.  For Kant, intention can make all the difference between morally correct behaviour and morally incorrect behaviour. 

Ideology can play a part in legitimising the use of torture.  Ideology is the body of ideas and beliefs of a group, possibly religious, or nation (Maran, 1989, p11).  If the ideology of the tortured is believed to be morally wrong and the act of torture prevents the spread of this ideology then torture can be deemed to be justified.

So, in conclusion, there are ethical theories that both state that torture can never be justified and those that state it can be, in different, varying circumstances.

Case Study: Torture in the Algerian War (1954-1962)

The Algerian War lasted from 1954 to 1962.  The war was the final part of the process of the decolonisation of Algeria from France.  The war was one of the 20th Century's bloodiest colonial struggles, and it continues to be the object of intense controversy, especially in France (BBC News, 2001).  It is now public knowledge that the French utilised torture against some Algerians.  This torture has been widely condemned in recent years.  However morality has a historical dimension and the morality of today cannot be used to judge the actions of fifty years ago.   

In 1955 a French civil servant, Williaume, was sent by the French government to investigate allegations of torture in Algeria by French military personnel. His report failed to unequivocally condemn the torture that he discovered (Nacquet, 1963, appendix). As a result, the period 1955 to 1962 saw an increase in the amount of torture, not only through Algeria, but also in France itself

Paul Aussaresses, a retired French general is quoted as saying “as far as the use of torture is concerned, it was tolerated, if not recommended.” Aussaresses is unusual in that he openly talked about and wrote about the act of torture and his participation in it.  Although many others have reviewed the use of torture in the Algerian War, Aussaresses is one of the few who were involved and can give first hand accounts.    Therefore his comments that defend the use of torture will be used to form the basis of this part of the report.  

Torture, Aussaresses said, was sanctioned at the highest level because of the need to extract urgent information from the enemy.  “It was a matter of stopping actions which were being prepared for deeds causing the deaths of my fellow French and Algerian citizens,” he said.  He claims to have stopped Algerian bomb makers from killing French civilians by extracting confessions though electric shocks and suffocation. (BBC News, 2001).  Aussaresses seems here to be using Mill’s Theory of Utilitarianism to justify the torture that occurred; he believed it bought about a greater good for a greater number of people.  Whether or not this torture can be considered justified in the light of his comments depends on whether or not the torture did indeed stop other deaths, and of course, whether the reader subscribes to the Theory of Utilitarianism. 

Sources note that the effect of the torture of Algerians by French was a retaliation whereby Algerians took part in ‘killing and raping collaborators, rivals and settlers’ (Joly, 1991, p36).  So, in actual effect the torture that Aussaresses describes as the catalyst for saving lives, actually served to result in more life loss.  Therefore, regardless of the beliefs of the author or reader regarding the Theory of Utilitarianism, in this instance the act of torture was not justifiable on the grounds that it bought about the largest possible balance of good over evil for everyone involved.

Aussaresses is also quoted as saying “the men I executed were always men guilty of blood crimes. They had blood on their hands.  I would do it again today if it were against Bin Laden” (BBC News, 2001).  Aussaresses seems to be utilising the concept of proportionality from Acquinas’ Just War Theory to justify the acts of torture and killing here.  He believes his acts were justified as they were in proportion to those perpetrated by the Algerians involved.  However, it is the author’s opinion that the concept of proportionality has no place in ethical thinking.  The old adage ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ is very topical here.  Indeed, may proverbs lead and guide ethical thinking.      Torture cannot be justified because other crimes have been committed by those tortured.  It can be questioned, what right did Aussaresses and his contemporaries have to dish out this punishment?  If people had committed crimes they should have been tried in a court and justice meted out in that manner. 

French people were led to believe that France was ‘crusading for the defence of Western values against the barbarians of the East’ (Hoffman, 1963, p.85).  It is clear, then that ideology was used as a justification to the public of the acts of torture that occurred.  However, the author subscribes to the theory that this justification is flawed due to ‘geographical morality’ as discussed earlier.  I believe this justification was simply used to ensure the public accepted the practise of torture. 

Case Study: Torture in the Iraq War (2003 onwards)

There has been some conflict in Iraq for the past couple of decades.  For the purposes of this paper the latest Iraq War, commencing 2003 and still continuing will be considered. 

This war is a useful case study as it demonstrates, in these more recent times, when torture is seen to be less and less acceptable, how it both still occurs and is justified in different terms to previously. 

There is much discourse as to whether or not the Iraq War itself is justified, so the use of torture as part of it questioned considerably.  Using Aquinas’ Just War Theory, the Iraq War is unjust and therefore any torture taking place as part of it is also so.  The War is not believed, by the author to be just as it does not Aquinas’ third condition, that those waging the war are dong it simply to triumph good over evil.

There is no doubting that both American and British troops have been involved in some kind of torture of Iraqi nationals.    A Red Cross report, the Army's own Taguba report (British Red Cross, 2004), even the photographs published in newspapers all point to this.   In Camp Bucca during the period August 2003 to February 2004 the following acts have been reported; forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing, and punching, slapping, and kicking detainees, amongst others (Observer, 2004).

There is an aspect of ideology being used to justify torture.  It has been noted that the media portrays Islamic people as those who ‘will stop at nothing, including disgraceful acts of terrorism, to disrupt Western values’ (Lee & Smith, 2004, p 215).  However, it is the author’s opinion that this does not justify torture.  It is also the author’s opinion that information gained through torture is likely to be unreliable due to this very fanaticism, and therefore make the ‘purpose’ of torture unobtainable.

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is the emergency legislation that was created in response to the US terror atrocities on September 11th 2001.   It has been accused of eroding civil liberties.  It has contributed to a heightened sense of vulnerability in the British public and perhaps, in part, although not its aim, it has contributed to making the mistreatment and torture of Iraqis more acceptable.   Bin Laden has been vilified in Western press and the torture of Iraqis can be seen as proportional to the atrocious acts committed by Bin Laden and his followers. 

There is a real sense of ‘geographical morality’ in the justification of torture by the US and the UK.  When videos of kidnapped Westerners being tortured are viewed, there is universal damnation in the West, but Western personnel behind closed doors are practising similar acts.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the issue of torture and discussed whether or not is can ever be justified.    The definition of torture, a brief history of torture and the international context of torture have been discussed.  The main part of the report has dealt with the question ‘is torture ever ethical?’ by first exploring ethical theories in relation to this question, and then applying relevant theories to tow case studies, the Algerian War (1954-1962) and the Iraq War (2003 onwards).  It is worth noting that the justifications offered for torture in both cases were very similar, despite the two occurrences being fifty years apart. 

Finally, the author would like to offer their opinion and draw to a conclusion the debate offered by the question ‘can torture ever be justified?’  It is the author’s opinion that torture can never be justified and can never be considered the ethically correct thing to do.  There is no ethical theory offered in this paper that the author subscribes to that can correctly be applied to any of the justifications offered in the two case studies used.  Not only that, but torture does not fulfil its intended purpose of gaining useful information and it often brings about more barbarity.

Bibliography

  1. Almond, Brenda. (1998). Exploring ethics: a travellers tale, Bodmin: MPG Books.
  2. Badiou, Alain. (2001). Ethics: an essay on the understanding of evil, London: Verso.
  3. BBC News - French general on trial over Algeria (2001). 14th April 2005. Available from World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1675992.stm
  4. BBC News - Chirac condemns torture general (2001). 14th April 2005. Available from World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1312556.stm
  5. British Red Cross (2004).  13th April 2005. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.redcross.org.uk/uploads/documents/info%20sheet%20-%20iraq%20november%202004.doc
  6. Danner, Mark (2004). Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror, New York: New York Review of Books.
  7. Evans, Malcolm D. and Morgan, Red (1998). Preventing torture: a study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  8. Gray, John, Benvenisti, Meron and  Ehrenreich, Barbara. (2005). Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture, New York: North Atlantic Books.
  9. Greenberg, Karen J., Dratel, Joshua L., and  Lewis, Anthony. (2005). The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Hoffman, Stanley. (1963). In Search of France, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  11. Joly, Daniele. (1991). The French Communist Party and the Algerian War.  London: Macmillan Press.
  12. Kellaway, Jean. (2003). The History of Torture and Execution: From Early Civilization Through Medieval Times to the Present, London: Mercury Books.
  13. Klayman, Barry M. (1978). The definition of torture in international law, v.51, London: Temple Law.
  14. LaFollette, Hugh. (1999). Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, London: Blackwell Publishers.
  15. Lee, Roger and Smith, David M. (2004). Geographies and moralities: international perspectives on justice, development and place, London: Blackwell Publishing.
  16. Lovell, Alan and Fisher, Colin. (2002). Business Ethics and Values, London: FT Prentice Hall.
  17. Maran, Rita. (1989). Torture: the role of ideology in the French-Algerian War, New York: Praeger Publishers.
  18. Morgan, Rod and Evans, Malcolm. (1999). Protecting prisoners: the standards of the European Committee for the prevention of torture in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Nacquet, Vidal. (1963). Torture, Cancer of Democracy, London: Penguin.
  20. The Observer – British quizzed Iraqis at torture jail. (2004).  12th April 2005.  Available from World Wide Web: 7http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212769,00.html
  21. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - UN Committee Against Torture. 17th April 2005.  Available from World Wide Web: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/
  22. Pojman, Louis. (1998).  Deontological Ethics, Moral Philosophy, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
  23. Roy, Jules (1961). The War in Algeria, New York: Grove Press.
  24. 介绍
    本报告的目的,在一审中,界定酷刑。然后检查历史的酷刑和着眼于国际法有关酷刑。主要部分的研究分析有关酷刑的道德理论,并研究是否有理由在任何情况下,刑讯可以使用这些伦理观点。此外,阿尔及利亚战争和伊拉克战争将被用来作为案例研究,以进一步讨论周围酷刑的伦理问题。将得出结论,将在其余的报告结果的基础上,笔者的回答这个问题可以使用酷刑永远是合理的吗?“ 。
    研究限制
    这项研究有其局限性。首先,只有两个案例研究使用。有许多酷刑案件的整个世界和整个历史,可以利用。在这样做时,可能会作出不同的结论。
    酷刑就是这样一个感性的主题,它是很难保证的事实,真正代表。在十九世纪以前,一些国家公开承认酷刑作为一种工具,司法调查,但今天绝大多数国家实行酷刑呆呆会否认它的任何知识。当然,这使得研究酷刑困难。
    此外,可以看出,有无数冲突的道德理论可以应用到主题酷刑。一个人的个人信仰会影响多大的信任,他们给每个观点。因此,笔者的意见是可能从读者的不同。
    酷刑的定义
    酷刑具有广泛理解的定义,导致他人严重的疼痛或精神痛苦的,通常是为了获得一些信息的人被折磨,最通常的告白。
    大赦国际指出, “酷刑是由一个人在另一个系统和蓄意施加任何形式的急性疼痛,为了达到目的,前者对后者的意志” ( Klayman ,1978, p482 ) 。这一定义包括身体和精神上的痛苦。它还指出,酷刑有一个目的,不允许为了折磨拷打的娱乐。
    委员会为欧洲人权公约“对酷刑的定义只是故意不人道待遇造成非常严重或残忍的痛苦” (摩根·埃文斯, 1999 ,P95 ) 。它提供的例子迫使人们采取的房间里有一个连续的响亮的嘶嘶声,蒙头,剥夺食物和水的压力位。
    欧洲委员会公约“人权”的定义是笔者首选的定义。这是因为对酷刑的定义,而不是由施刑者的意图,但治疗效果的折磨。
    酷刑简史
    “折磨”这个词往往让人联想到中世纪的刑具这样一个品牌的铁杆头螺钉。从14世纪中期到年底的18世纪酷刑是一个公认的惯例,军队,司法系统,甚至教堂(马兰, 1989年,第VII ) 。在十九世纪,但舆论改变折磨一直持续进行。犹太人在第二次世界大战中被纳粹的酷刑一旦成为公共知识,众多的国际法律生效购买,以防止使用酷刑。然而,酷刑仍然一直持续到今天,但其使用仍然被广泛谴责,酷刑细节均保持非公有制下来,播放或合理的操纵舆论。所谓的文明国家也同样可能的肇事者酷刑今天与已知的恶劣的人权纪录(凯拉韦,2003, P34)国家。
    国际化背景下的酷刑
    目前国际法绝对明确禁止酷刑在任何情况下。国际上有许多法律和公约的定义作为反人类罪酷刑。这些措施包括欧洲防止酷刑公约“和欧洲人权公约” 。这两件法律的目的是携手并肩。
    联合国禁止酷刑委员会是一个独立专家监察实施“公约”禁止酷刑和其他酷刑的相关法律主体。所有成员国有责任向委员会提交定期报告的权利如何正在实施(联合国人权事务高级专员办公室) 。
    道德理论应用酷刑
    有多种多样的道德理论可以应用到的问题,“可以使用酷刑永远是有道理的吗? '理论,得出结论说,酷刑是绝对不可接受的,我们首先将检视。
    康德(1724-1804 )开发康德的理论。它是基于相信,原因是道德的最终权力。道德的行为是做正确的原因(洛弗尔和费舍尔,2002, P314 )的行为。康德的理论是密切相关的所有主要宗教的教义,圣经所说的'己所不欲,你就必须把你们' 。康德伦理学的中心是他的绝对命令,这是一套通用的规则大纲“ ,只有良好的意志,意志行动的责任感,有不合格的道德价值” (波伊曼, 1998年, P194 ) 。
    道义论的理论,据此行动,本质上是对还是错,酷刑可以看作是不可接受的,无论情节和后果。道义论认为,人们不能从事不道德行为,如酷刑,即使在道德上是最好的结果,如提早结束战争或拯救生命。
    十八世纪后期的作家和政治家埃德蒙·伯克,指责英国患他称为“地理道德” (李和史密斯, 2004年, P16 ) 。 “地理的道德”是当人们感到震惊和谴责酷刑纵容其做法在其他国家,而自己的当局准备。英国不是唯一的,这是有罪的,尤其是在西方许多国家,可以被指责“地理的道德” 。
    不过,也有许多其他的理论表明,酷刑在某些情况下,在道德上是可接受的。
    约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒( 1808年至1873年)提出了一个被称为功利主义的道德理论。功利主义可以总结一语中的, “每个人都应该以这样的方式行事带来最大可能的平衡战胜邪恶良好的人人参与' (杏仁,1988, P127) 。利用这一理论,刑讯可以合理的,如果它带来了一个更大的好处更大数量的人。结束不择手段。功利主义理论,如果一个人的折磨意味着这几个人的位置,并救出一个可怕的情况,然后说,酷刑是无可非议的。
    结果主义提供想法,酷刑折磨的后果是合理的,如果在道德上是正确的。结果主义的伦理观,建立正确性或不正当的好坏及其后果所产生的行动。
    问题交织折磨曾经是合理的吗? '是可以的战争是合理的吗?“酷刑的代理人战争的问题' ,这似乎是适当的。正义战争理论可以用来为酷刑辩解的理由,在某些情况下是可以接受的。圣托马斯阿奎那( 1225年至1274年) “诉诸战争权”的条件,他认为已得到满足的战争是合理的。一个合法机关责令战争,它必须为正义事业和那些谁发动战争是正义战胜邪恶(杏仁, 1998年, P197 )的意图发动。当然,利用这种正义战争理论的问题是,达成的条件是主观的。然而,这是道义上的依据,酷刑可以用正义战争理论,如果它是一个合法的政府,好和最好的意图,其总体目标是通过开展。
    比例的概念,发现在Acquinas审议的正义战争理论。他认为,交战的活动应该是相称的侵略,因此不能过度侵略。这意味着,酷刑,一个非常积极的交战活动,将在伦理上可接受的响应非常积极的行动。
    可以说,以拷打者的意图有所作为的道德价值的行动,酷刑。在结果主义的道德理论,意图是很重要的意图是,你希望达到什么行动。对于康德,意图使所有道德上正确的行为和道德上是不正确的行为之间的差异。
    意识形态可以起到部分使用酷刑合法化。思想是身体的一组,可能是宗教或民族(马兰,1989, P11)的想法和信念。如果思想被认为是不道德的行为折磨和酷刑行为的阻止这种意识形态的传播,那么,刑讯可以视为是合理的。
    所以,在最后,有道德的理论,这两个国家都没有正当理由,酷刑和那些状态,它可以在不同的,不同的情况。
    案例研究:酷刑在阿尔及利亚战争( 1954-1962 )
    的阿尔及利亚战争持续了1954年至1962年。战争是阿尔及利亚非殖民化的过程中,来自法国的最后一部分。战争是20世纪最血腥的殖民斗争之一,但它仍然是激烈争论的对象,尤其是在法国(BBC新闻,2001年) 。现在是公共知识,对一些阿尔及利亚人法国动用酷刑。这样的折磨已经在最近几年得到了广泛的谴责。然而,道德有一个历史范畴,今天的道德,不能用来判断50年前的行动。
    在1955年法国民事的仆人, Williaume ,由法国政府派出调查酷刑指控在阿尔及利亚的法国军事人员。他的报告没有明确谴责酷刑,他发现( Nacquet , 1963年,附录) 。其结果是, 1955年至1962年期间看到增加量酷刑,不仅通过阿尔及利亚,但在法国本身也
    保罗Aussaresses ,法国退役将军被引述说:“尽可能使用酷刑,这是不能容忍的,如果没有建议。”的Aussaresses是不寻常的,他公开谈论和写的关于酷刑的行为和他的参与在它。虽然许多人都检讨在阿尔及利亚战争中使用酷刑, Aussaresses是一个少数人参与,可以得到第一手资料。因此,他的意见,使用酷刑辩护将用于这部分的报告的基础上形成。
    的酷刑, Aussaresses说,在最高水平,因为需要从敌人提取紧急信息制裁。 “停止行动正在准备我的同胞法国和阿尔及利亚公民死亡的事迹引起的问题, ”他说。 “他声称,虽然电击,窒息逼供阿尔及利亚炸弹制造商已停止从法国平民丧生。 (BBC新闻,2001年) 。 Aussaresses似乎这里使用穆勒的功利主义理论来证明所发生的酷刑,他相信它买更大数量的人一个更大的好处。无论这样的折磨,可考虑光有理由对他的评论依赖与否的折磨确实阻止其他人死亡,当然,读者是否订阅的功利主义。
    来源指出,由法国的阿尔及利亚人的酷刑报复,阿尔及利亚人参加了“杀害和强奸合作者,竞争对手和定居(乔利,1991, P36) 。所以,在实际效果上的折磨, Aussaresses描述为挽救生命的催化剂,其实,导致更多的生命损失。因此,无论的信仰作者或读者关于功利主义理论,在这种情况下,酷刑行为是不是正当的理由,它购买了约最大可能的平衡,善良战胜邪恶,人人参与。
    Aussaresses也被引述说:“执行的男人,我总是男人犯血案。他们手上沾满鲜血的。我会再次这样做的今天,如果它是对本·拉登“ (BBC新闻,2001年) 。 Aussaresses似乎要利用比例的概念从Acquinas '正义战争理论来证明行为的酷刑和杀戮在这里。他认为他的行为是正当的,因为他们在那些犯下涉及阿尔及利亚人比例。然而,这是笔者认为比例的概念有没有在伦理思想。古老的格言“两错不犯的权利'是这里非常关注。事实上,谚语领导和指导伦理思想。不能自圆其说,因为其他罪行已经犯下那些折磨酷刑。可以质疑,有什么权利做Aussaresses和他同时代的抛出这个处罚?如果有人犯下了罪行,他们应该已经尝试给予以这种方式在法庭上与正义。
    导致法国人认为,法国“讨伐西方的价值观为防御对东(霍夫曼, 1963年,第85页)的野蛮人。它是明确的,然后作为意识形态的理由向公众发生酷刑行为。然而,笔者赞同这个理由是有缺陷的理论,由于地域的道德“如前面所讨论。我相信这个理由只是用来确保市民接受酷刑的做法。
    案例研究:酷刑在伊拉克战争( 2003年起)
    在过去的几十年中,已经有一些在伊拉克冲突。对于本文的目的,最新的伊拉克战争, 2003年开始,将被视为仍在继续。
    这场战争是一个非常有用的案例研究,因为它表明,在这些更近的时候,当酷刑都被看作是难以接受,它仍然出现不同的术语来以前是合理的。
    有很多的话语是否在伊拉克战争本身是有道理的,所以它的一部分使用酷刑质疑相当。使用阿奎那的正义战争理论,伊拉克战争是不公正的,因此它的一部分的任何酷刑的地方也是如此。笔者只是因为它不是阿奎那的第三个条件,这场战争是不相信那些发动战争的洞,它只是善良战胜邪恶的胜利。
    有没有怀疑,美国和英国军队已参与某种酷刑的伊拉克国民。一家红十字会报告,陆军自己塔古巴报告(英国红十字会,2004年)中,甚至在报章上刊登的照片,所有的点。在2003年8月至2004年2月期间,有下列行为之一的布卡营已经报道, ,强行安排各种露骨的位置进行拍摄的被拘留者,冲孔,打耳光,踢的被拘留者,其中包括(观察员,2004年) 。
    有一个意识形态方面被用来为酷刑辩解。人们已经注意到,媒体描绘伊斯兰的人,那些谁“将不惜一切代价,包括可耻的恐怖主义行为,扰乱西方价值观” (李和史密斯, 2004年,第215)停止。然而,笔者认为,这并不证明酷刑。这也是笔者认为通过酷刑获得的信息可能是不可靠的,由于这个非常狂热,因此使酷刑用不上的“目的” 。
    反恐怖主义,犯罪和安全法案“的紧急立法,创建于2001年9月11日针对美国的恐怖暴行。它一直被指责削弱公民自由。它在英国公众高度的脆弱感,也许在某种程度上,虽然不是它的目的,它作出了贡献的虐待和酷刑的伊拉克人更容易接受。拉登已在西方媒体和诋毁,伊拉克人可以被看作是本·拉登和他的追随者所犯下的残暴行为成正比的折磨。
    是一个真正意义上的地理道德“在美国和英国施行酷刑的理由。视频时被绑架的西方人被折磨,被视为是普遍的诅咒在西方,但西方人员闭门修炼类似的行为。
    结论
    本文探讨酷刑问题,并讨论是否可以永远说不过去。酷刑的定义的酷刑和酷刑的国际背景下,一个简短的历史进行了讨论。已处理的问题“的报告的主要部分是折磨有史以来道德?” ,首先探索这个问题的道德理论,然后运用相关理论拖案例研究,阿尔及利亚战争(1954-1962 )和伊拉克战争( 2003年起) 。值得注意的是,在这两种情况下的酷刑提供的理据非常相似,尽管50年除了出现两个。
    最后,笔者就喜欢来提供他们的意见和绘制的结论提供问题的辩论可以折磨曾经被合理的吗? “这是笔者认为,酷刑从未有道理和可从来没有被认为在道德上正确的事情,以做的。有没有本文提供的道德理论,可以正确地被应用到任何使用这两个案例中提供的理据笔者赞同。不仅,但酷刑没有履行其预期的目的,获得有用的信息,它往往会带来更野蛮的。
    参考书目
    杏仁,布伦达。 ( 1998年) 。探索道德:一个旅行者的故事,博德明: MPG书籍。
    阿兰·巴迪乌。 (2001年) 。伦理上的一篇文章的理解的邪恶,伦敦: Verso公司。
    BBC新闻 - 审判阿尔及利亚(2001年)的法国将军。 2005年4月14日。可从万维网http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1675992.stm的
    BBC新闻 - 希拉克谴责酷刑一般(2001年) 。 2005年4月14日。可从万维网http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1312556.stm的
    英国红十字会(2004年) 。 2005年4月13日。可从万维网: http://www.redcross.org.uk/uploads/documents/info % 20sheet % 20 - % 20iraq的的% 20november % 202004.doc
    丹娜,马克(2004年) 。酷刑和真相:美国,阿布格莱布监狱,战争的恐怖,纽约:纽约书评。
    埃文斯,马尔科姆D.摩根,红(1998) 。防止酷刑:欧洲人权公约“防止酷刑和不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约” ,牛津大学的一项研究: Clarendon新闻。
    格雷,约翰, Benvenisti ,梅龙和厄莱雷奇,芭芭拉。 (2005年) 。阿布格莱布监狱酷刑的政治,纽约:北大西洋书籍。
    格林伯格,约书亚L.卡伦J. Dratel ,刘易斯,安东尼。 (2005年) 。酷刑论文:路阿布格莱布,剑桥:剑桥大学出版社。
    霍夫曼,赤柱。 (1963) 。在搜索法国,剑桥:哈佛大学出版社。
    乔利,丹尼尔。 (1991) 。法国共产党和阿尔及利亚的战争。伦敦:麦克米伦按。
    凯拉韦,吉恩。 (2003年) 。酷刑和处决的历史:从早期文明经过中世纪时代到现在,伦敦:汞图书。
    Klayman ,巴里M. (1978) 。国际法, V.51 ,伦敦:寺法“中的酷刑定义。
    LaFollette ,休。 ( 1999年) 。布莱克韦尔伦理理论指南,伦敦Blackwell出版。
    李,罗杰史密斯:大卫M. (2004) 。地域和道德正义,发展的地方,伦敦的国际视野: Blackwell出版。
    洛弗尔,阿伦和费舍尔,科林。 (2002年) 。商业道德和价值观,伦敦: FT Prentice Hall出版社。
    马兰,丽塔。 (1989) 。酷刑:意识形态的作用,在法国的阿尔及利亚战争,纽约: PRAEGER出版者。
    摩根,罗德和埃文斯,马尔科姆。 ( 1999年) 。保护囚犯:欧洲委员会的标准在上下文中的酷刑的预防。牛津大学:牛津大学出版社。
    Nacquet ,比达尔。 (1963) 。酷刑,癌症的民主,伦敦:企鹅。
    观察员 - 英国教师测验酷刑监狱的伊拉克人。 (2004年) 。 2005年4月12日。 HTML可从万维网: 7http :/ / observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0 , 6903,1212769,00 。
    联合国人权事务高级专员 - 联合国禁止酷刑委员会办公室。 2005年4月17日。可从万维网http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/的
    波伊曼,路易。 ( 1998年) 。义务论伦理学,道德哲学,印第安纳波利斯:哈克特出版公司。
    儒勒·罗伊, ( 1961年) 。在阿尔及利亚战争中,纽约:格罗夫出版社。