This is a discusion that has come up in the past and i thought that i would
bring it up here. I was waching the daily show and i saw the republican
convintion and one of the questions was a fictional senerio remanistant of 24
involving a fake terrerist threat i dident realy recal what the threat was. but
what horified me was the republican presidental hopfuls went full swing into
just how they would torture the victums(exept mcain of course because he was
tortured himself) when i first herd of the conditions in abu garab and the fact
that we have serit torture prisones in other countries. Have we gone so far as
to have torture as a subject
I am sickend by it
what are your views on the so called
"inhanced terigation technices"
Torture spans a wide range of events from relatively mild physical torture to
insidious mental torture (which in many ways leaves the victim even more scarred
than physical torture would). As a subject of the government it is an important
one. the reason is that major decision makers and field commanders (military and
civilian organizations) are forced to make decisions and those decisions are
almost never black or white. Its always a trade off as which of the evils to
deal with. Take an extreme almost moviesque type situation. Knowing that the
lives of five young girls are in imminent danger, do you torture their captor
until he/she reveals the location of the girls or do you not do anything and let
the girls die without lifting a finger.
Granted, that was an extreme case but it underlines what the decisions can
involve. I am not a fan of torture and never will be but I am also fairly
realistic so I understand that those sorts of decisions must be made. The issue
really comes into question when it is for enjoyment (thinking Abu Gharib) and
has no real goal.
If the individual in custody does indeed have critical information about an
impending attack, which if we obtain would enable our government to avert
another 9/11 but which we cannot obtain from any other source except this
individual, then what do you do? That was the crux of the question posed at the
Republican debate.
Torture is no longer a black and white issue in such a dilemma. It pits the
responsibility of government to uphold the human rights of the captured
combatant against the duty of government to preserve the life of its citizens.
Which ought to supersede the other? I don't think there's an absolute answer to
that question.
the odds of such a threat and the odds that the information lies in the
individual are very unlikly. I think there are other methods of finding
information. torture is a horibal atrocity and has been practised by
dicktaorships and other countries sence the dawn of cilvilusation. but this is
america we are soposet to be better than this. how can we call orselves just
when we are torturing peolpe in other countries.
Quote: the odds of such a threat
and the odds that the information lies in the individual are very
unlikly.
Actually, it is not unlikely. Preventing a terrorist attack requires swift and
precise action to the utmost. Trying to find an "alternative source of
information" when the man who we know has that information is already in
our custody may become an unacceptable delay. It's very possible that the
American intelligence system can find the same information via other methods.
But the time it takes may give the plotters just the window they need to
execute. The "right" or "wrong" of torture blurs when the
value of thousands of other lives are on the other end of the scale.
The United States ought to stand on a higher moral ground than states who
routinely torture people. At the same time, the United States ought also be the
nation that can most successfully and consistently prevent harm to its citizens.
To fulfill its duty, our government may very well need to choose the lesser of
two evils to achieve a greater good.
Quote by springheeljack298I
think there are other methods of finding information.
True.
However, torture is a rather useful way of verifying information obtained via
other means, and vice versa, via cross-referencing.
Quote: torture is a horibal
atrocity and has been practised by dicktaorships and other countries sence the
dawn of cilvilusation. but this is america we are soposet to be better than
this. how can we call orselves just when we are torturing peolpe in other
countries.
What is just? Preserving a man's dignity, his
basic human rights, even after he murders hundreds w/o second thought, even if
there is every possibility that his knowledge could save hundreds of others?
Torture is deplorable. It is despicable. But when the potential gain is so
great, what is the worth of a monster's dignity, of a murdering dog's rights?
Nothing. There is no point debating what is or is not just. Rather, discuss what
is MORE just.
Quote: but this is america we are
soposet to be better than this.
With respect, this is a very
idealistic way of thinking. For any country, the government can hardly afford to
uphold lofty morals at all times. When your responsibility includes millions of
lives and trillions in assets, one cannot possibly remain in an ivory tower.
Compromise must be made. Unsavoury things must be done for the greater good. To
end World War II, for example, your country killed over 100,000 Japanese in one
fell swoop at Hiroshima.
Allowing torture for anything is saying "yeah it's ok to take away
someone's dignity and rights because of this". From there it is only a
small step to political ideals, race, sexual preference, or even sock
color.
Quote by springheeljack298when
a prisoner is tortured he will admit to anything to escape the
pain
Not true for example. During the Salem witch trials people did die before
admitting to witchcraft.
If you're the commander. Would you tell your fodder the details of an attack
that would take place after their likely death? Even if you did, after they're
captured you'd likely change your plan wouldn't you?
Quote by Espada What is just? Preserving a
man's dignity, his basic human rights, even after he murders hundreds w/o second
thought, even if there is every possibility that his knowledge could save
hundreds of others? Torture is deplorable. It is despicable. But when the
potential gain is so great, what is the worth of a monster's dignity, of a
murdering dog's rights? Nothing. There is no point debating what is or is not
just. Rather, discuss what is MORE just.
Is it just to deprive a man's dignity, and basic human rights simply because you
believe him to be "evil"? So what if you believe he has murdered
hundreds of people without remorse. Even if you think there is a possibility
that his knowledge could help someone. Would it be worth it if it couldn't? If
he didn't have the information would you stop before you killed him? Would you
not define a monster as someone, who has no respect for anyone's dignity or
rights?
And the problem is torture is not efective it dosent get good results
the prisoner when tortured will tell the persone anything he whants to hear
wheather it is true or not. They are not credibal
Quote: If you're the commander.
Would you tell your fodder the details of an attack that would take place after
their likely death? Even if you did, after they're captured you'd likely change
your plan wouldn't you?
How would the terrorist commander know that his subordinate would be captured?
The hypothetical situation posed at the debate implies that we have captured
someone who was tasked to either transmit or execute a plan. And once he is
captured, there is all the more reason to act swiftly before the plan changes or
is rushed to execution, a necessity hindered by the requirement to exhaust every
other possible source of information prior to interrogating the captured
combatant.
The Republican candidates did not condone or support use of "enhanced
interrogation techniques" as a routine method. Realize the context of their
remarks - they were asked whether they would allow such techniques when they 1)
have a terrorist in custody and 2) know that the individual in custody knows the
plans of an impending attack. In such limited and extreme case, the Republican
candidates affirmed that using enhanced interrogation techniques would be
justified. No one said we should torture every one we capture.
Quote: So what if you believe he
has murdered hundreds of people without remorse. Even if you think there is a
possibility that his knowledge could help someone. Would it be worth it if it
couldn't? If he didn't have the information would you stop before you killed
him? Would you not define a monster as someone, who has no respect for anyone's
dignity or rights?
You are arguing that the human rights of one, who already violated the human
rights of others, is of greater value than the lives, and consequently the human
right to life, of thousands of innocent civilians. The most fundamental duty of
our government is to preserve the lives of its citizens. If it fails to perform
that duty at the cost of championing the human rights of an individuals that it
knows intends harm to the citizenry, then it is a failed government. Is not that
government then a monster in itself since it failed to respect its own citizens'
dignity and right to life?
I brought up the republican national converntion to mearly give a recent example
of when this topic has come up. this has been an issue for a while on wheather
the united states should honer the Geniva Convention wich says that under no
surcumstances should allow the use of creul and unusial punishment,wich we have
not folloed
But a lot of prisoners especaly in gutanimo have not been oficaly charged with
anything thus they cannot be ganted habeas corpus(in case you dount know what
habeas corpus is it is A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court
by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The
petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a
legal or factual error.)wich basecaly menas that they have no right to question
thir imprisanment if they are not oficialy charged with anything. Furthermore
many of the prisoners at Guatanimo are suspectid of bieng terrersts. thus it
means that they can be anybodey that look "suspisous"
I have read in the a artical in the New Yorker that the Cia has been torturing
many prisoners and that alot of peolple have died in there hands. and that a
solder if he tortures a person to death will be punished acordingly a Cia ofical
will be able to escape punishment. that is the problum and refering to what you
said before. the odds of are capabilites to ack swifltly is very unlikly the war
has draind so much of are resorses that we are much more vulnerubal to a
terrerest attack then we were before 911.
Quote by EternalParadox How would
the terrorist commander know that his subordinate would be captured? The
hypothetical situation posed at the debate implies that we have captured someone
who was tasked to either transmit or execute a
plan.
Given the nature of terrorist attacks, and their news coverage knowing that one
didn't go off with out a hitch is very easy.
The hypothetical situation posed states; that three groups of suicide bombers
have hit mails. a fourth attack was averted when the attackers where captured.
U.S intelligence believes another larger attack could come at any time. (about
half way through http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSCJDYm8EU
)
Quote by EternalParadoxYou are
arguing that the human rights of one, who already violated the human rights of
others, is of greater value than the lives, and consequently the human right to
life, of thousands of innocent civilians. The most fundamental duty of our
government is to preserve the lives of its citizens. If it fails to perform that
duty at the cost of championing the human rights of an individuals that it knows
intends harm to the citizenry, then it is a failed government. Is not that
government then a monster in itself since it failed to respect its own citizens'
dignity and right to life?
I'm arguing that for all you know this person is in fact an innocent. Given the
nature of why torture would be used in this or any case like this. It's insane
to assume due process has been followed. As such the decision to who should be
tortured falls on what one person believes. Weather it is true or not. You've
essentially stated that oppressing someone simply because they are believed to
intend harm is ok.
In addition, the governments role isn't as simple as protecting it's people. It
also must protect it's core principles. Torture is to abrasive to our core
believes to make it worth doing. Apart from it being unreliable at best, and
pointless if approached from different angels.
As stated in my first post here. If we allow torture for anything, it will only
be a matter of time before "why" changes. At witch point it will be
acceptable for them to torture you because you're the "threat". And in
the end what good is being safe if you aren't free?
Do you want to know more about tortures? Read chinese ancient doctrine where
kings killed their prisoners and their queens or queens kill each other. I read
a book like that when I was little and it scares me so much. Their torturing
ways are somehow fascinated that you cannot think off, like cut every skin on
the person until they die, or tie the legs and arms of the person to 4 horses
and make the horses to go in the opposite ways and tear the person apart. Quite
scary and interesting.
Horrible. Disgusting, no matter who does it. China is very common nowadays for
doing it. But people tend to forget that the USA is doing the exact same thing
in Guantanamo
There are guys cutting off peoples heads and sending the videos to the families
and calling it justice.
They call it torture when you put underwear on a guys head and make him do
jumping jacks. Sounds like there trying to get into a fraternity. And a pyramid
of naked guys? You're just pledging. The correct response is "Sir, may I
have another?"
I don't think anyone agrees that torture is a good thing, however (this is to
jack and bluesky) you are oversimplifying the issue.
There is a difference (and unfortunately its not going to change anytime in the
foreseeable future) between taking the moral high ground and doing what is
neccessary to protect others as well as yourself.
You assume that these people (your "victims" of torture) are/were
taken off the street with little to no evidence as to their complicity and you
assume that the people making the decisions whether or not to
"torture" those individuals, do so arbitrarily. Both assumptions are
wrong. I can't say it any clearer than that. Many of those "victims"
were either captured in battle, captured in raids on known outposts, taken after
being placed under extensive surveillance, or captured as targets of opportunity
(when known wanted individuals surface in public).
Granted torture is a horrible act however, would you honestly take the chance
between the death of 100s, 1000s, 10,000s, or more people versus the
emotional/psychological/physical scarring or even death of one individual known
to be involved.
In the very improbable case in which torture is done to prevent the death of
millions, I think it could be accepted. However, torture usually means just
breaking the prisoner for the sake of it, as exemplified in Guantanamo (where,
for everyone's information, it usually is people taken out of their homes
without explanations and with no rights and NO PROOF of being terrorists at
all)
If terrorists do not have rights...we would all live like barbarians...if you
don't give them rights don't expect them to give them to you...and of course
that would only trigger a response of "if they don't give me rights, I
won't give hem either!". The barbanian circle of life would be finished.If
we believe ourselves in the right for being more civilised and morally strong,
we should exemplify, instead of throwing a temper tantrum like children
Quote by SanzoSaruHowever, torture
usually means just breaking the prisoner for the sake of it, as exemplified in
Guantanamo(where, for everyone's information, it usually is people taken out of
their homes without explanations and with no rights and NO PROOF of being
terrorists at all)
You're evidence for this statement is
What? the media?, "other sources"?, the statements of the individuals
at Guantanamo? I'd really like to see you back up that statement with cold hard
verifiable proof.
Quote by SanzoSaruIf terrorists do not
have rights...we would all live like barbarians...if you don't give them rights
don't expect them to give them to you...and of course that would only trigger a
response of "if they don't give me rights, I won't give hem either!".
The barbanian circle of life would be finished.If we believe ourselves in the
right for being more civilised and morally strong, we should exemplify, instead
of throwing a temper tantrum like children
Unfortunately that
argument only works for people who wish to stick their head in the sand and hope
the problem goes away. Maybe you don't understand the concept of terrorism. Its
basically "I wish to kill lots of people to frighten the rest into
submitting to my views or wishes." Reality check, a terrorist never gives a
d#$% about the people they kill. They don't care if those people were upright,
honest, good people or evil, nasty, hurtful people, or anything in between.
As a catholic I have a very hard time reconciling the purported value of torture
versus the violation of human dignity and life involved.
That aside, the issue is pretty simple and it gets cloudy by a lot of "what
ifs." Is torture ever acceptable? It's really a yes or no answer. I dislike
how often people skip this and go straight to the "well what if you thought
he had a bomb etc etc" crap.
From there we get to when and where. My real problem with torture is the same as
my problem with the death penalty. By this point in time it should be obvious to
all that the Pentagon and the US armed forces are more than capable of their
fair share of screwups. People held in Guatanamo for no apparent reason for over
a year and then released without an apology, etc are a good example (then again,
we have only the ex-con/prisoner's word...) but there are a great many others.
So there are flaws in the system. Do we then find it acceptable to torture
someone under these circumstances? Knowing that intelligence leading to the
subject capture is questionable? Etc...
This whole "you know x was involved in planning an impending massive attack
on a major US city, do you torture them to obtain information?" question is
so far removed from the reality of the issue that it seems to me to be virtually
worthless.
Mnemneth: "You assume that these people (your "victims" of
torture) are/were taken off the street with little to no evidence as to their
complicity and you assume that the people making the decisions whether or not to
"torture" those individuals, do so arbitrarily. Both assumptions are
wrong." Granted, the person in question may be a terrorist. They may not
be. We know full well that there are no hard and fast rules as to how someone is
identified to be a terrorist and how long they are held. You seem guilty of the
exact thing you accuse others of - jumping to conclusions, but just on the
opposite side of the issue.
Quote Eternal Paradox: "You are arguing that the human rights of one, who
already violated the human rights of others, is of greater value than the lives,
and consequently the human right to life, of thousands of innocent civilians.
The most fundamental duty of our government is to preserve the lives of its
citizens."
Beyond the fact that you are assuming that the terrorist in question is in fact
already guilty (which is a fundamental problem with terrorism and a reason we do
not allow it as part of the due process of a criminal investigation in the US...
not just because a statement obtained under extreme duress is not valid in court
-though it isn't- but because the US legal system's notion of justice is
predicated on the idea that a person has to be _proven_ guilty and torture
causes such duress on the human mind and body such that, if anything, the
process of investigation would be _worse_ than imprisonment itself). And then we
wind back up at the basic issue as to whether or not you are comfortable
trusting military intelligence as to the viability of the suspect. It sounds as
though you are. I don't know if I am.
EDIT: Also, I don't know if the fundamental duty of a government is to protect
just the lives of its citizens. Certainly, its responsibility is first and
foremost to its citizens. It could also be argued that todays behavior could
wind up doing greater future harm to our citizens. The Geneva Convention's
strictures on human rights are a spit-and-a-handshake sort of situation. Say we
wind up going to war with China or Israel or whoever and, as other have very
rightly pointed out, we now run the risk of having no ground to stand on when we
ask for the safe return of captured troops.
This is a discusion that has come up in the past and i thought that i would bring it up here. I was waching the daily show and i saw the republican convintion and one of the questions was a fictional senerio remanistant of 24 involving a fake terrerist threat i dident realy recal what the threat was. but what horified me was the republican presidental hopfuls went full swing into just how they would torture the victums(exept mcain of course because he was tortured himself) when i first herd of the conditions in abu garab and the fact that we have serit torture prisones in other countries. Have we gone so far as to have torture as a subject
I am sickend by it
what are your views on the so called
"inhanced terigation technices"
Torture spans a wide range of events from relatively mild physical torture to insidious mental torture (which in many ways leaves the victim even more scarred than physical torture would). As a subject of the government it is an important one. the reason is that major decision makers and field commanders (military and civilian organizations) are forced to make decisions and those decisions are almost never black or white. Its always a trade off as which of the evils to deal with. Take an extreme almost moviesque type situation. Knowing that the lives of five young girls are in imminent danger, do you torture their captor until he/she reveals the location of the girls or do you not do anything and let the girls die without lifting a finger.
Granted, that was an extreme case but it underlines what the decisions can involve. I am not a fan of torture and never will be but I am also fairly realistic so I understand that those sorts of decisions must be made. The issue really comes into question when it is for enjoyment (thinking Abu Gharib) and has no real goal.
But torture does not work when a prisoner is tortured he will admit to anything to escape the pain
If the individual in custody does indeed have critical information about an impending attack, which if we obtain would enable our government to avert another 9/11 but which we cannot obtain from any other source except this individual, then what do you do? That was the crux of the question posed at the Republican debate.
Torture is no longer a black and white issue in such a dilemma. It pits the responsibility of government to uphold the human rights of the captured combatant against the duty of government to preserve the life of its citizens. Which ought to supersede the other? I don't think there's an absolute answer to that question.
the odds of such a threat and the odds that the information lies in the individual are very unlikly. I think there are other methods of finding information. torture is a horibal atrocity and has been practised by dicktaorships and other countries sence the dawn of cilvilusation. but this is america we are soposet to be better than this. how can we call orselves just when we are torturing peolpe in other countries.
Actually, it is not unlikely. Preventing a terrorist attack requires swift and precise action to the utmost. Trying to find an "alternative source of information" when the man who we know has that information is already in our custody may become an unacceptable delay. It's very possible that the American intelligence system can find the same information via other methods. But the time it takes may give the plotters just the window they need to execute. The "right" or "wrong" of torture blurs when the value of thousands of other lives are on the other end of the scale.
The United States ought to stand on a higher moral ground than states who routinely torture people. At the same time, the United States ought also be the nation that can most successfully and consistently prevent harm to its citizens. To fulfill its duty, our government may very well need to choose the lesser of two evils to achieve a greater good.
True. However, torture is a rather useful way of verifying information obtained via other means, and vice versa, via cross-referencing.
What is just? Preserving a man's dignity, his basic human rights, even after he murders hundreds w/o second thought, even if there is every possibility that his knowledge could save hundreds of others? Torture is deplorable. It is despicable. But when the potential gain is so great, what is the worth of a monster's dignity, of a murdering dog's rights? Nothing. There is no point debating what is or is not just. Rather, discuss what is MORE just.
With respect, this is a very idealistic way of thinking. For any country, the government can hardly afford to uphold lofty morals at all times. When your responsibility includes millions of lives and trillions in assets, one cannot possibly remain in an ivory tower. Compromise must be made. Unsavoury things must be done for the greater good. To end World War II, for example, your country killed over 100,000 Japanese in one fell swoop at Hiroshima.
Allowing torture for anything is saying "yeah it's ok to take away someone's dignity and rights because of this". From there it is only a small step to political ideals, race, sexual preference, or even sock color.
Not true for example. During the Salem witch trials people did die before admitting to witchcraft.
If you're the commander. Would you tell your fodder the details of an attack that would take place after their likely death? Even if you did, after they're captured you'd likely change your plan wouldn't you?
Is it just to deprive a man's dignity, and basic human rights simply because you believe him to be "evil"? So what if you believe he has murdered hundreds of people without remorse. Even if you think there is a possibility that his knowledge could help someone. Would it be worth it if it couldn't? If he didn't have the information would you stop before you killed him? Would you not define a monster as someone, who has no respect for anyone's dignity or rights?
And the problem is torture is not efective it dosent get good results
the prisoner when tortured will tell the persone anything he whants to hear wheather it is true or not. They are not credibal
How would the terrorist commander know that his subordinate would be captured? The hypothetical situation posed at the debate implies that we have captured someone who was tasked to either transmit or execute a plan. And once he is captured, there is all the more reason to act swiftly before the plan changes or is rushed to execution, a necessity hindered by the requirement to exhaust every other possible source of information prior to interrogating the captured combatant.
The Republican candidates did not condone or support use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a routine method. Realize the context of their remarks - they were asked whether they would allow such techniques when they 1) have a terrorist in custody and 2) know that the individual in custody knows the plans of an impending attack. In such limited and extreme case, the Republican candidates affirmed that using enhanced interrogation techniques would be justified. No one said we should torture every one we capture.
You are arguing that the human rights of one, who already violated the human rights of others, is of greater value than the lives, and consequently the human right to life, of thousands of innocent civilians. The most fundamental duty of our government is to preserve the lives of its citizens. If it fails to perform that duty at the cost of championing the human rights of an individuals that it knows intends harm to the citizenry, then it is a failed government. Is not that government then a monster in itself since it failed to respect its own citizens' dignity and right to life?
I brought up the republican national converntion to mearly give a recent example of when this topic has come up. this has been an issue for a while on wheather the united states should honer the Geniva Convention wich says that under no surcumstances should allow the use of creul and unusial punishment,wich we have not folloed
But a lot of prisoners especaly in gutanimo have not been oficaly charged with anything thus they cannot be ganted habeas corpus(in case you dount know what habeas corpus is it is A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error.)wich basecaly menas that they have no right to question thir imprisanment if they are not oficialy charged with anything. Furthermore many of the prisoners at Guatanimo are suspectid of bieng terrersts. thus it means that they can be anybodey that look "suspisous"
I have read in the a artical in the New Yorker that the Cia has been torturing many prisoners and that alot of peolple have died in there hands. and that a solder if he tortures a person to death will be punished acordingly a Cia ofical will be able to escape punishment. that is the problum and refering to what you said before. the odds of are capabilites to ack swifltly is very unlikly the war has draind so much of are resorses that we are much more vulnerubal to a terrerest attack then we were before 911.
Given the nature of terrorist attacks, and their news coverage knowing that one didn't go off with out a hitch is very easy.
The hypothetical situation posed states; that three groups of suicide bombers have hit mails. a fourth attack was averted when the attackers where captured. U.S intelligence believes another larger attack could come at any time. (about half way through http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSCJDYm8EU )
I'm arguing that for all you know this person is in fact an innocent. Given the nature of why torture would be used in this or any case like this. It's insane to assume due process has been followed. As such the decision to who should be tortured falls on what one person believes. Weather it is true or not. You've essentially stated that oppressing someone simply because they are believed to intend harm is ok.
In addition, the governments role isn't as simple as protecting it's people. It also must protect it's core principles. Torture is to abrasive to our core believes to make it worth doing. Apart from it being unreliable at best, and pointless if approached from different angels.
As stated in my first post here. If we allow torture for anything, it will only be a matter of time before "why" changes. At witch point it will be acceptable for them to torture you because you're the "threat". And in the end what good is being safe if you aren't free?
I agree
Lol u guys crack me up with ur torture theories. xD
wait what?
Do you want to know more about tortures? Read chinese ancient doctrine where kings killed their prisoners and their queens or queens kill each other. I read a book like that when I was little and it scares me so much. Their torturing ways are somehow fascinated that you cannot think off, like cut every skin on the person until they die, or tie the legs and arms of the person to 4 horses and make the horses to go in the opposite ways and tear the person apart. Quite scary and interesting.
Yeah i had to do a project over torture and some of the instruments are just sickening
Horrible. Disgusting, no matter who does it. China is very common nowadays for doing it. But people tend to forget that the USA is doing the exact same thing in Guantanamo
There are guys cutting off peoples heads and sending the videos to the families and calling it justice.
They call it torture when you put underwear on a guys head and make him do jumping jacks. Sounds like there trying to get into a fraternity. And a pyramid of naked guys? You're just pledging. The correct response is "Sir, may I have another?"
I see no problem with the torture of terrorists. Terrorists are subhuman and have no rights in my opinion.
I don't think anyone agrees that torture is a good thing, however (this is to jack and bluesky) you are oversimplifying the issue.
There is a difference (and unfortunately its not going to change anytime in the foreseeable future) between taking the moral high ground and doing what is neccessary to protect others as well as yourself.
You assume that these people (your "victims" of torture) are/were taken off the street with little to no evidence as to their complicity and you assume that the people making the decisions whether or not to "torture" those individuals, do so arbitrarily. Both assumptions are wrong. I can't say it any clearer than that. Many of those "victims" were either captured in battle, captured in raids on known outposts, taken after being placed under extensive surveillance, or captured as targets of opportunity (when known wanted individuals surface in public).
Granted torture is a horrible act however, would you honestly take the chance between the death of 100s, 1000s, 10,000s, or more people versus the emotional/psychological/physical scarring or even death of one individual known to be involved.
In the very improbable case in which torture is done to prevent the death of millions, I think it could be accepted. However, torture usually means just breaking the prisoner for the sake of it, as exemplified in Guantanamo (where, for everyone's information, it usually is people taken out of their homes without explanations and with no rights and NO PROOF of being terrorists at all)
If terrorists do not have rights...we would all live like barbarians...if you don't give them rights don't expect them to give them to you...and of course that would only trigger a response of "if they don't give me rights, I won't give hem either!". The barbanian circle of life would be finished.If we believe ourselves in the right for being more civilised and morally strong, we should exemplify, instead of throwing a temper tantrum like children
You're evidence for this statement is What? the media?, "other sources"?, the statements of the individuals at Guantanamo? I'd really like to see you back up that statement with cold hard verifiable proof.
Unfortunately that argument only works for people who wish to stick their head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Maybe you don't understand the concept of terrorism. Its basically "I wish to kill lots of people to frighten the rest into submitting to my views or wishes." Reality check, a terrorist never gives a d#$% about the people they kill. They don't care if those people were upright, honest, good people or evil, nasty, hurtful people, or anything in between.
As a catholic I have a very hard time reconciling the purported value of torture versus the violation of human dignity and life involved.
That aside, the issue is pretty simple and it gets cloudy by a lot of "what ifs." Is torture ever acceptable? It's really a yes or no answer. I dislike how often people skip this and go straight to the "well what if you thought he had a bomb etc etc" crap.
From there we get to when and where. My real problem with torture is the same as my problem with the death penalty. By this point in time it should be obvious to all that the Pentagon and the US armed forces are more than capable of their fair share of screwups. People held in Guatanamo for no apparent reason for over a year and then released without an apology, etc are a good example (then again, we have only the ex-con/prisoner's word...) but there are a great many others. So there are flaws in the system. Do we then find it acceptable to torture someone under these circumstances? Knowing that intelligence leading to the subject capture is questionable? Etc...
This whole "you know x was involved in planning an impending massive attack on a major US city, do you torture them to obtain information?" question is so far removed from the reality of the issue that it seems to me to be virtually worthless.
Mnemneth: "You assume that these people (your "victims" of torture) are/were taken off the street with little to no evidence as to their complicity and you assume that the people making the decisions whether or not to "torture" those individuals, do so arbitrarily. Both assumptions are wrong." Granted, the person in question may be a terrorist. They may not be. We know full well that there are no hard and fast rules as to how someone is identified to be a terrorist and how long they are held. You seem guilty of the exact thing you accuse others of - jumping to conclusions, but just on the opposite side of the issue.
Quote Eternal Paradox: "You are arguing that the human rights of one, who already violated the human rights of others, is of greater value than the lives, and consequently the human right to life, of thousands of innocent civilians. The most fundamental duty of our government is to preserve the lives of its citizens."
Beyond the fact that you are assuming that the terrorist in question is in fact already guilty (which is a fundamental problem with terrorism and a reason we do not allow it as part of the due process of a criminal investigation in the US... not just because a statement obtained under extreme duress is not valid in court -though it isn't- but because the US legal system's notion of justice is predicated on the idea that a person has to be _proven_ guilty and torture causes such duress on the human mind and body such that, if anything, the process of investigation would be _worse_ than imprisonment itself). And then we wind back up at the basic issue as to whether or not you are comfortable trusting military intelligence as to the viability of the suspect. It sounds as though you are. I don't know if I am.
EDIT: Also, I don't know if the fundamental duty of a government is to protect just the lives of its citizens. Certainly, its responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens. It could also be argued that todays behavior could wind up doing greater future harm to our citizens. The Geneva Convention's strictures on human rights are a spit-and-a-handshake sort of situation. Say we wind up going to war with China or Israel or whoever and, as other have very rightly pointed out, we now run the risk of having no ground to stand on when we ask for the safe return of captured troops.