Michael Levin’s “A Case for Torture” is meant to invoke emotion. This is Levin’s deliberate point. He doesn’t have facts and facts galore. He doesn’t even quote a creditable source. He uses extreme situations to tug at your emotions, situations that may, or more likely may not happen. I read this piece and was immediately indignant. Twice in this essay Levin insults those who disagree with him, i.e. me.
“If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes?” paragraph 4
“How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, “ I’m sorry you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to…” paragraph 5
I know personally the reason I’m against using torture to get answers is not because I can’t bring myself to do something, but because I believe there is always a third way. There is some other way, some other technique that could be used to get answers quickly. I am not an expert on torture or military methods, but I do know there are other options besides torture.
I also resented that he blames part of Hitler’s reign on the fact that Roosevelt refused to kill Hitler based on moral grounds. Did Roosevelt have prior knowledge of the Holocaust? I am not diminishing the Holocaust or the misery that Hitler inflicted on millions, but that had not happened yet.
I have to give Levin credit though because if I put myself into any of the situations mentioned I would hope the government would do anything to save my life. That is the point of the essay though. Levin wants you to become emotionally attached to what he is saying and agree with him. A clever tactic, especially since this was published in Newsweek magazine, a popular magazine with no political ties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment