Turture Case Essay Example for Free

Turture Case EssayThis world is full of crimes and state of war. Thither isnt one country out there that doesnt give nigh sort of confliction with other countries. Is it shape? Is it ok to be committing all(prenominal) these war crimes? Honestly there isnt some(prenominal) reasonable dish up for that. Several people argue differently round the situation on war crimes. The author of cerebration about Torture, also film critic for National Review, and author of many other books Ross Douthat dialogue about what he thinks about war crimes, which he believes they argon not correct but the war crimes could be warrant. In the other hand the author of Committing War Crimes for the Right Reasons, Glenn Greenwald who was also a positive law and civil rights lawyer has his own opinion. He believes war crimes are not shamable for any reason. Sometimes its knotty to decide what side is correct.The question here is, is ache ok? In Thinking about Torture, Douthat writes It doesn t exc use 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 ascertain 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 Committing War Crimes for the Right Reasons, Greenwald makes it clear when he states but we dont 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 C postulatez, or Hamas, or Slobodan Milosevic or Islamic extremists are immediately condemned for pursuance to defend the indefensible, or invoking root causes to justify the unjustifiable, or offering mitigating rationale for pure barbarous.With this he is tell that many people volition 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 spot 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 some(prenominal) agree in some way that it is not correct. Douthat states in paragraph 9, here I am more comfortable saying straightforwardly that this should never have been allowed that it should be considered out(predicate) as well as immoral, and that it should involve disgrace for those responsible, the Cheneys and Rumsfelds as well as the people who in reality implemented the techniques that the Vice Presidents office promoted and the Secretary of Defense signed off on. Douthat is stating that the to rture should have not taken place at all to begin with and is unforgiveable.The people behind all of this should be ashamed of their actions. Greenwald states in paragraph 12, What determines whether a political leader is good or evil isnt their nationality. Its their conduct. And leaders, who violate the laws of war and commit war crimes, by definition, arent good, even if they are American. Greenwald is simply and clearly is stating that it doesnt 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 determination 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 spokesperson 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 correct choice is? With people like Douthat and Greenwald arguing their sides its difficult to choose the correct one.