Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

I feel that the usage of torture is never justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists.

Torture is usually inflicted on detainees suspected of holding criminal or terror-related information. Thus it does not necessarily prove that the detainee himself is actually guilty of whatever crimes he has been accused of. What if he really is an innocent man? Does it mean that the true culprit is still at large, and another man is reluctantly standing in his place, suffering for nothing? Sometimes, torture can kill detainees, which makes the method unjustified, even more so when the casualty is innocent.

Furthermore, it has also been proven that torture is less effective than patiently persuading criminals or terrorists in extracting information. Though there had been some successes in retrieving information through means of torture, patiently persuading suspects into cooperating had proven to be much effective. In addition, innocent men wrongly convicted of their crimes may provide interrogators with bogus information in order to stop the pain, which would cause delays and a waste of resources in solving the crime.

When the detainees are cleared of charges or proven innocent, they might resent their experiences and turn against the authorities, committing crimes as a form of revenge. Innocent terror suspects might also join terrorist groups as a form of revenge. Hence it is shown that torture might cause detainees to really commit the crimes they were accused of, worsening the current situation.

Torture is also inhumane. It infringes upon the basic rights of a human being. Detainees do not usually get to have a series of trials, which is already an infringement of their rights. Furthermore, detainees are made to go through a series of painful experiences without their personal consent.

And is it really right to put a person suspected of putting others in pain through the same thing as his victims? Interrogators should not put their detainees through the same pain as their victims, for it would make the investigators themselves not much different from the criminals. Both inflict pain on people in order to get what they want. Instead, by using the 'soft' method of persuasion, the criminals themselves may feel guilty and start to become remorseful, hencing complying to the investigators' demands.

Though torture is here to stay, we should try to minimize the usage of it as far possible. Torture is inhumane, infringing the basic rights of a human. Torture also has devasting consequences on security too since it might cause resentment within the detainees.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

In the world today, traditional mainstream media is transforming into the new media. This occurs in the wake of the emergence of the internet, Weblogs (blogs) and essentially the citizen journalists. However, should the new media be seen as power to the people, or threat to stability? I feel that it should be seen as the latter.

With the appearance of the internet and blogs, people are provided with an easy passage to get their views across to the masses. The vast majority would use it for constructive purposes, like providing feedback to governments on its policies. However, there would be this minority of extremists who would use blogs and the internet as a medium for propaganda. Though they may be a small group, but all it takes is a few of these individuals to spread their manipulative ideas through a medium accessible to the masses - internet or blogs, to breed hatred and bring about instability. And there have been already a few cases on such activities, like that of the website which is the used by the Islamic terrorist group - Al-Qaeda to spread Anti-Western propaganda by glorifying suicide bombers, or rather martyrs of Islam in their eyes.

Furthermore, if governments try to control these extremists online, by banning anti-establishment blog sites, people would start to feel as if they have been restricted as a whole. The masses would feel that the government is trying to take on a dictatorship style of governance, by silencing their sceptics, though it might not be the case. These views are further fuelled by the banned bloggers themselves who would grab these opportunities to attack the government and gain supporters by falsingly reassuring the masses that their views on the government silencing opposition are true. This would cause unnecessary resent, thus leading to future instability.

Sad to say, the new media is already in existence, thus prevention is no more an option. Hence we have to find the cure to the new media. Maybe by adapting ourselves, and becoming more rational creatures which are able to differentiate between logical claims and claims that are aimed at just wrecking havoc, could we transform the new media into a power to the people.

Can the media ever relied upon to convey the truth?

The media is usually our primary source of information on the world beyond the doors of our homes. Almost piece of news we receive, which we suppose is true, comes from the media. However, as more analysis goes on, more evidences are appearing to show that the media is not anymore reliable. So can we really still rely on the media for the truth?

The media in some countries are controlled by the government, thus it is not hard to wonder if the news the audiences are subjected to are totally true and neutral. The government may have distorted some of the facts, or provided only the partial truth , so as to gain support from its citizens. And this usually occurs only in countries that are governed by dictator-style governments, whereby the authority has control in almost every aspect of the nation.

However, this also occurs in supposedly fully democratic nations. Although the governments do not explicitly show that they have direct control over the media, there are usually laws present to manipulate these. Thus, media corporations would conform to these laws in order to stay in business. And in the process of conforming to these laws, some of the truth in the news might be removed.

Take Peoples' Republic of China for instance, although they are not a true democratic nation, their media is all supposedly 'privatised'. Thus it is assumed that the government would not intervent in its affairs. In a recent television programme aimed at finding new talent, the broadcasting company had initally planned to allow audiences to send in sms votes for their favourite contestants. However, the Chinese authority immediately informed the corporation to abolish the plan or be banned, as they feared that giving Chinese citizens a taste of democracy ( in the voting of contestants) might result in an uprising in the communist state. Hence it is evident that governments do have control over the media to some extent with the use of laws.

Although some governments restrict the media greatly in order to gain voters' support or for other selfish gains, sometimes, such restrictions are necessary. Sometimes, ignorance is better than knowing the truth. With these restrictions, the government can probably help maintain the stability and peace within the country.

One such country which requires restriction in its media is Singapore. Singapore is a largely multi-racial country with many races each forming a significant proportion of the nation's population. Thus, the media must be restricted at times in order to keep the peace. Especially in the world today, where terrorism is constantly a great threat, Singaporeans must be united. Any news that would breed racial prejudice and resentment should be banned from Singapore in order for her people to stay united. If the media is not restricted, scenes of the riots regarding the Danish cartoons last year would occur again.

In some countries where the 'freedom of the press' once reigned, this is fast disappearing. Like according to 'Great Lies of the American Press' by 'David R. Hoffman', the media today is driven by popularity, prejudice and profit.

News agencies would 'censor legitimate and detailed news stories in favour of sensationalistic and superficial tripe' . Thus the truth in many things are distorted in order to make the issue more appealling to audiences, which increases the agency's popularity. With the increased popularity and viewship, more commercial endorsements would coming knocking, which in turn equates to more profits.

Furthermore, some journalists are paid by the government to help write articles that would encourage citizens to do things that would boost the success rate of government policies. Isn't it all driven by the greed for profits?

In addition, some news casters or even news agencies are prejudice in almost all ways possible. According to the above stated article, a journalist Babara Walters, 'sanctimoniously announced, to the applause of her predominantly white audience, that she would not interview former football star turned actor O.J Simpson, who had been acquitted of murdering his wife and a family friend.' However, what she forgot was that she had earlier interviewed Robert Blake, an actor also acquitted for murdering his wife. So what conclusions could be drawn from this? Well, Babara was sub-consciously racist, since she refused to interview a black man after she had interviewed a white guy who had committed a similar crime. Sometimes, such prejudice is evident when censorship is based on personal biases of editors. For example when an editor refused to have an article published that would have gotten his personal friend in trouble.

Thus, with all the negative aspects of what trully drives the media, and all the government-controlled media, it is hard to truely rely on them to convey the truth.