Turture Case Essay Example for Free

Turture Case Essay This world is full of crimes and war. There isn’t one country out there that doesn’t have some sort of confliction with other countries. Is it normal? Is it ok to be committing all these war crimes? Honestly there isn’t any reasonable answer for that. Several people argue differently about the situation on war crimes. The author of â€Å"Thinking about Torture†, also film critic for National Review, and author of many other books; Ross Douthat talks about what he thinks about war crimes, which he believes they are not correct but the war crimes could be justified. In the other hand the author of â€Å"Committing War Crimes for the ‘Right Reasons’†, Glenn Greenwald who was also a constitutional law and civil rights lawyer has his own opinion. He believes war crimes are not acceptable for any reason. Sometimes it’s difficult to decide what side is correct. The question here is, is torture ok? In â€Å"Thinking about Torture†, Douthat writes â€Å"It doesn’t excuse what was done by our government, and in our name, in prisons, in detentions, cells around the world. But anyone who felt the way I felt after 9/11 has to reckon with the fact that what was done in our name was, in some sense, done for us.† This illustrates that Douthat has somewhat mixed feelings about torture. He feels that there is no excuse for the use of torture and what the government has done. But the way he felt after the attack of 9/11 what the government did was done for us to feel some form of justice. In â€Å"Committing War Crimes for the ‘Right Reasons†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢, Greenwald makes it clear when he states â€Å"but we don’t accept that justifying reasoning when offered by other. In fact those who seek merely to explain – let alone justified the – the tyranny, extremism and/or violence of Castro, or Chavez, or Ha mas, or Slobodan Milosevic or Islamic extremists are immediately condemned for seeking to defend the indefensible, or invoking â€Å"root causes† to justify the unjustifiable, or offering mitigating rationale for pure evil.† With this he is saying that many people will always find some kind of defense to justify the use of torture, but in reality there is no justification for an act of malevolence. Douthat finds justifications to the tortures that could reasonable to some while Greenwald finds no justification and believes the excuses are poor. Even though Douthat and Greenwald may have different views they also have some similarities. They both agree in some way that it is not correct. Douthat states in paragraph 9, â€Å"here I am more comfortable saying straightforwardly that this should never have been allowed – that it should be considered impermissible as well as immoral, and that it should involve disgrace for those responsible, the Cheneys and Rumsfelds as well as the people who actually implemented the techniques that the Vice President’s office promoted and the Secretary of Defense signed off on.† Douthat is stating that the torture should have not taken place at all to beg in with and is unforgiveable. The people behind all of this should be ashamed of their actions. Greenwald states in paragraph 12, â€Å"What determines whether a political leader is good or evil isn’t their nationality. It’s their conduct. And leaders, who violate the laws of war and commit war crimes, by definition, aren’t good, even if they are American.† Greenwald is simply and clearly is stating that it doesn’t matter what nationality a leader is from to determine whether they are good or bad leaders, but what determines if they are good or bad leaders are by their actions. They both agree that a leader should be responsible with what actions they choose. And if a leader chooses an unpleasant action they should be ashamed and considered terrible leaders. As people may have their own views and opinions like Douthat and Greenwald one finding a justification for torture and the other finding no excuse for it. Everyone will always have their own view, opinion, and answer, but at the end the real answer will never be known. For example Douthat could convince with the justifications he finds but Greenwald will also convince some on how there is no justification. The correct decision should always be chosen to avoid all this conflicts some people will argue. But how does somebody actually what the â€Å"correct† choice is? With people like Douthat and Greenwald arguing their sides it’s difficult to choose the correct one.