The question of whether torture should be used as a method of deriving information should not be a question at all. Even in the direst of situations, the use of torture for any reason is not plausible in a society that bases its structure on the rights of the citizen. The Bill of Rights, which is the foundation of one of the longest standing governments in the world, lays down three specific amendments that are in crystalline opposition with torture. Also, democracies are dependent on a system of checks and balances. A system that allows torture, without a check from another branch, wields an unlimited frightening amount of power. The alternate question should be asked: in the direst of situations, how is it possible for government to catastrophically compromise the system on which it is built simply for a few specific situations?
The United States' Constitution was framed to free itself from the totalitarian government of England. The Constitution was constructed to ensure that people do not have to endure tyrannous oppressions from unlimited government. "The Case for Torture," written by Michael Levin, describes how, in dire situations, there may not be enough time to consider the rights of the accused. However, the 5th amendment assures "due process of law" to every direct and indirect citizen of the United States. If the accused has no access to a trial of his peers, then the police force doing the torturing is given the role of judge, jury and punisher. The 6th amendment promises the right to representative council present when being questioned or asked to confess. Without this council present, a confession is subject to interpretation. There would be no way to judge a definite confession from an ambiguous confession. There would be no way to see if a confession even took place at all. The last and most significant amendment that protects the rights of the accused is the 8th. "Cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." This section of the definite "rights of man" in the document that defines our very way of life specifically speaks against the inhumane use of torture as punishment or as a persuader. "It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in opposition to the law of nature. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them,"(Thomas Jefferson). The three-branch system of checks and balances would be blatantly defied if the system described by Michael Levin were put into place. When a power is not checked, then this power is no longer an established section of the American government. Generally, as human nature defines, if any given person or group is given an unlimited amount of power, he is prone to abuse it. A perfect example of this is the credit card. The credit card is one of the largest debt producers in the nation. People are given access to money they don't have, and they abuse it. Allowing government to torture citizens is like giving them a Platinum Visa card of power with which to exploit the civil liberties of citizens and spend, without repaying, constitutionally given rights.
After realizing that it is impossible to initiate a system of torture, the problem of the extreme situations where the lives of American citizens are in danger is still present. It is simple to think that the only solution to an extreme terrorist threat is torture. The contrary is true. After being creative, it is evident that arrays of possible solutions are available. Torture is not a solution; it is a degradation of human morals. Truth serums, chemicals that induce truth telling, have been proven to be effective. Also terrorist threats in the past have been dealt with by the means of a simple investigation. SWAT teams and bomb squads are trained to go into building to search for bombs. Why compromise everything Americans live, work, and die for because of a failure to investigate other available options?
When analyzing whether torture is ethical, it is important to realize that generations of people have died to establish and preserve the way of life in American society. There is no reason to prostitute the gained liberties for instant gratification.
-David Washington
The Elvehjem, a museum of art on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, is where this essay takes place. While walking through the halls of this wonderful building, I stumbled across an especially odd looking piece of art that was made in 1961. It happened to be an abstract piece of art made of welded bronze on monel metal, whatever that is, and was called Séance. The artist was an American sculptor named Seymour Lipton. Once a suffering artist who had to turn to dentistry to survive, Lipton is now probably living exceptionally well on his unusual abstract art.
This piece struck me rather well because it was not "in the norm," whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess what I am saying is that there really is no norm. Most everybody says that there is a norm because they expect realism in art. This idea of realism in everything just does not exist. Yes, it exists, but there are also other mediums of art. Therefore, there really is no norm due to the abundant amount of art mediums. Besides, who is to say what is normal, something that is symmetrical? Anyhow, Séance's uniqueness had a profound beauty about it: the slabs of metal, the coned shaped points in the center and nose of the artwork, the cylinders of metal all put together with creative and wild emotions of the heart. A séance as defined by the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary states "session, sitting; a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications," but Mr. Lipton's artwork is far beyond what would be called a séance. But then again, maybe it isn't. After closer inspection, the viewer can see that this artwork can be the vessel that the spirits travel on. The chaotic slabs of metal with sharp points towards the back of the deck and a pointed nose create a dangerous and sad ship for the spirits to come back on. This may reflect the sadness of the spirits who want to, but at the same time does not want to come back to the living realm. This is my interpretation of what Mr. Lipton is trying to get across, but at the same time the work of art also allows the viewer to get a little imaginative and explore his mind to see what is being portrayed.
As I continued down the corridors of this art museum building, I discovered a more disturbing picture. It is an oil on canvas painting by a Spanish artist named Luis Feito. This painting was called Peinture no. 183 and was painted in 1960. I did not really like this painting.
Why did I not like the painting? I did not like the painting because it was truly sad. Not as calming as the Séance by Seymour Lipton, but more sorrow seemed to emanate from the painting. When I first looked at the painting, I thought, what in the world is all of this paint supposed to mean? Upon exploration of the imagination and the attempt to find a meaning, I stumbled upon one. As I took a closer look at the painting, I began to see faces in the dark melancholy background of the black and brown. I could see the faces of a white, copper/tan and black female, at least I assumed it was a female. The first face was a white face, then the copper/tan face, and then the black face. The faces all faced to the right, with the white on top and the black on the bottom layer in descending order of the black to the white. The black background seemed to have grabbed all the faces and was slowly pulling them into the dark abyss of nothingness and evil. But in that painting there were some brush strokes of white mixed with the brown. It seemed as if the light was trying to get through but could not, a sign of hope. The faces seemed to represent a stage in the slowly fading white face. The white face, which was the top layer and the first face, was being swallowed by the darkness because the final and bottom layer was a black obscured face. The darkness had taken over before the light could get through. This may be what the artist was trying to get through, that we could all be sucked into the hatred of this world before the light reaches us.
Also, the artist's whole intentions may have been to evoke this feeling onto the viewer, the feeling of sadness. If this was his whole intention, then he did a wonderful job. Yes, he did do a wonderful job, because upon the discovery of a meaning in the painting, I was astonished at the feeling that stirred within me. I felt the sadness bearing down on me from the painting as if someone on the other side was screaming for help, and I could not give it. The disturbance of sadness within my body is the cause for my dislike of Peinture no. 183. The artist did too well of a job, and I give him that credit for getting inside of my emotions. My dislike may also stem from my admiration of his skill to get at the viewer's emotions, something that not all artists can do.