Information is sometimes more valuable then morals, so that justifies some tortures. If lives are in stake and if its the for the good of the country It would be best to put aside morals and sympathy. For instance, what if a bomber had placed timed bombs in public places? If the bomber is captured I think torture would be necessary and justified. Put aside morality for the sake of others or you can give sympathy for the families of the lives who died from your lack of a backbone
Torture is an "advanced interrogation technique" that is far more effective than other interrogation techniques. Information is easily retrieved from individuals through torture. Therefore in this case, it can be justified.
As a form of judicial punishment, torture serves the purpose well. Torture is mentally captivating for both the observer and the sufferer. As the observer would understand the consequences of disobedience and the sufferer would understand the extent of which the power of the state has over him/her. The pain of the torture will also teach the sufferer a lesson that they should have obeyed authority. Everybody learns from this, therefore society becomes a better place.
The argument that torture is inhumane or cruel is laughable. Ethics and morality is subjective. Different people will have different definitions of morality. We should not look at the justifiability of torture based on our emotions but rather on the "net benefits" gained from torture. E.g. information retrieved from interrogation. Torture is way more effective that other interrogation techniques with the exception of use of leverages. E.g. threatening to rape/kill their wife and kids if they don't cooperate.
If the information extracted is incorrect, then you will have to torture them further or kill some members of their family as a demonstration of your power. If they have no further information to give, then judging by his/her crimes, the appropriate punishment shall be installed for them.
If the person you are torturing is part of an organization that is harming an american and other methods have tried and failed, who is more important, the criminal, or the innocent american?
Questioning or interrogating someone while torturing them is not likely to result in useful information. People will say anything, or admit to anything, to avoid being tortured. In some countries with oppressive governments, people will accuse innocent people of criminal activity to save themselves, and innocent people are tortured until they admit to things they didn't do, and punished as scapegoats. Torture is cruel and useless.
I don't think torture should ever be put lightly. But some people in this world do need it. Who here would say that if they were in a room with Hitler tied to a chair, you wouldn't get a bit violent with him. Also, for people like the parents of the poor 5 year old girl who was kidnapped in England recently. The suspect we have cannot be tortured, but by using some, I believe that child could be saved far quicker, if at all.
Torture should never be used for any reason. In the United States, we are not allowed to torture suspects in domestic crimes, so if we except these standards for ourselves, why should it be any different for our treatment of enemy combatants? In addition, I've head many experts familiar with interrogation techniques simply say: torture does not work. The information gathered is questionable at best. Therefore, let's not lower our human rights standards, especially when the results are unreliable, but more importantly inhumane.
If some one had information pertaining the a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent people, you would want to know about it. If they were not willing to give it up then torture would be necessary I know it is grim but is one life worth as many as thousands of lives. It is a tough call, but torture can be justified in some situations.
Yes, when you have a loved one injured you will understand why we say yes! There are times when one just needs to use revenge as the answer. It gives the suspect a feeling of knowing what victims feel like. I just ask that judgement is reserved until you have had someone you love attacked and left for dead by a bottom feeder of society.
How far would you go to save the life of your innocent child? If a terrorist plays with fear, why not giving him the same in return? There is no circumstances in which you wont agree to only harm ONE person to save HUNDREDS, nor harm one guilty person for an innocent one. In life, nothing is true, and everything is permitted.
If you are a murderer or a rapist, then you should be subjected to the pains that you have caused others. It is pathetic that our justice system does not actually punish violent offenders. Jail should be for non-violent offenders, not killers and rapists. So what if the government "stoops to their level"? Their victims didn't get a second chance, and neither should they.
If it comes down to protecting the lives of innocent people, then yes, I do support torture.
Do you think that if terrorist were to capture your family, they wouldn't torture them? The Taliban, Al Qaeda, extremist, are all individuals who do not care for human rights or life. These individuals don't care if they have to chop off your fingers in order to get what they want. People need to understand that we're dealing with bad people, who have bad intentions. People say that if the US tortures individuals, we're as bad as they are? Who ever said that we had to be the good guys in the first place? This world is full of people that care about one thing, and one thing only: take human life. People say that it is against human rights, it is not morally right, and ethically wrong. Let me ask you this: Name me one group of terrorist that has ever cared about rights, morals, and human ethics. Please do.
I am neither brainwashed nor do I have no idea what I am supportive of. I think physical and psychological torture are acceptable ways of getting anything that you want and/or need. People need to look at the big picture. If your (child, pet, mother, father, etc.) was abducted, and hidden, and the man won't tell you where she was hidden, you would, well, probably torture him for the information, would you not?
There is the kind done on evil bastards to release info to save lives.
Then there is the torture of prisoners of war as policy. You know, those soldiers who just happened to be fighting on the wrong side. This kind is in humane.
But a lot of people can't get the difference between the two.
First of all everyone has different opinions on what torture is.
Secondly torture only works if you are torturing someone who doesn't truly believe in what they are doing.
Also I believe that most people who torture are sociopaths but if torture was useless as some say then it would never have been used and the sociopaths wouldn't be allowed to torture anyone.
Finally if your loved ones had been poisoned and the only person who knows how to save them won't cooperate I'm sure that you would be for someone torturing them.
In order for a government to protect it's people at all costs, certain and more extreme methods must be used if the suspect refuses to co-operate. When someone can be identified as a plausible suspect for a crime, particularly a threat to national security, then I firmly believe that they should be stripped of all so-called human rights. It is not just acceptable to force the truth from national dangers but it is a duty.
You have to look at the situation without emotion. Yes, torture is wrong, but it will save innumerable lives if done. Sure it isn't always accurate, but it gets results much faster than other methods, and much more effective. Say that you have an hour to save innumerable civilians, and the perpetrator isn't talking. What are you going to do? Torture, both physical and psychological, has been around for thousands of years, and we still haven't found anything more effective
If there is irrefutable evidence that the person is involved in criminal activity that directly puts the life of other innocent citizens at risk, and the current legal interrogation methods do not produce positive results on time or at all. Then and only then will torture be necessary and justified.
If there is irrefutable evidence that the person is involved in criminal activity that directly puts the life of other innocent citizens at risk, and the current legal interrogation methods do not produce positive results in time or at all. Then and only then will torture be necessary and justified.
What is wrong with torture? Is it worse than capital punishment? Why can we not let someone suffer after what they may have made individuals suffer? After an action there is a reaction, that reaction may not be good sometimes and you just have to bear through it. No one said life was easy and no one said that we all have to be humane. Is it humane for a man/woman to brutally slaughter people? Is it humane for them to live in a jail sell rather than feeling the pain that they inflicted on others unto themselves? With everything good or bad there is always a opposite to it. Like love of course you want to be loved, but is there not a fear of losing love or never really having love at all. Why should one be killed rather than having the painful memories and total agony to remember that the pain they have inflicted can be inflicted upon them. I am not saying we use torture for just any reason here. I mean to those that have killed a number of people. Like say in 9/11 if the terrorist lived why not torture him, why not find out who he was working for? He killed hundreds with his pals so he should be reminded of the pain he brought to all the families by being beaten and put through suffrage. If they killed for no reason and were all ready dead on the inside why not torture them to know what true pain and horror is rather than killing their outer shell.
Torture is justified because it can give us info and they deserve it. I may be young but I know that torture is being used right now even though our bill of rights tells us no cruel and unusual punishment. We still do it and most people that it happens to deserve it.
I feel that we ought not allow terrorists "civil liberties or rights". Just the though is absurd and disgusting to me. In these circumstances where someone, foreign or domestic, chooses to make a deliberate attempt to take the a person or people's right to life. Torture ought to be a standby to get information quickly needed to possibly prevent any further attacks. The fact that some people even think about standing up for these people's "rights" is sick, twisted, and backwards,
I understand that torture is ugly, you get no argument from me there. But, when did it become such a bad word that even talking about it as a method to save lives makes you animal? Torture, in the sense that it is a horrible act, in essence is what makes it such a useful tool. I say the animals are the people that would not do anything at their disposal to protect the innocent in the name of misguided "holier than thow" principles. Because only an animal can see the potential dangers that today's society presents and continue to live as though it is a fantasy...
I dont know coming from a normal human being living in society i know you have had the thought cross your mind of killing someone but if the sentence instead of spending life in prison was just a year of getting tortured i promise that you would rethink killing someone
Our nation needs to be protected. There are people in this world who hate Americans, and they will try to hurt our country. Our nation needs to feel safe, and do you think that terrorists plotting against our country don't deserve torture? Also, some people deserve it. Some people have done bad enough things to the point where they deserve the pain.
Although some people may say that torture is wrong and inhumane, in reality it saves lives and protects innocent people from deadly terrorist attacks. When someone who is a terrorist gets tortured for a short amount of time, we are able to get valuable information about battle tactics and thus save the lives of innocent people. All of this comes at the cost of one terrorist being tortured.
Torture is justified when the person who gives torture to someone else receives the same torture they gave that person. Unless the person who is giving the torture to that other person has been tortured by that person that they are torturing in this case the person that gave the torture to the person who is getting revenge on that person cannot get that person back.
Family is one reason you would ever torture somebody. If some terrorist or lunatic kidnaps your wife or your child and you caught them, what would be the logical thing to do.......Torture them. Especially if they dont talk. If it were me I would do anything to get my wife or child or anybody I loved that they kidnapped back. All I'm saying is torture can be a justifiable cause.
What if you, your family, or a mass population of you country would die due a terrorist attack. Osama Bin Laden was found with the help of information obtained from torture. Also, if a US official, especially one who specializes in torture, goes takes the time and effort to detain you, you have done something bad enough that torture would be justified as a life long punishment for what you did.
Finding another way of extracting information is good and all, but imagine if you're on a time constraint. Do you really think that, say, a terrorist will crack, who have already lost their humanity in my book, by anything other than extreme physical pain? If so than you are deluded, in my opinion.
I believe torture is justified and is used as a way of getting vital information out of someone like a terrorist. Say if someone you love has been kidnapped and you caught one of them torture would get him to tell you what you want if he doesn't talk. Thank you.
- A citizen has made a consciences decision to harm others. If that person has information which could prevent a catastrophic act of terrorism or violence on a civilian population, torture is justified.
- Although states have an obligation to protect and uphold Human Rights they also have a duty to protect their citizens. Human Rights can and will be sidelined if there is a threat to the greater population.
- The argument that, ''we must be better than our enemies,'' is flawed. One must fight fire with fire. Those who have chosen to break laws and infringe on others Human Rights as outlined in the Universal Deceleration, must be held to account to prevent future actions of violence.
In a situation where an individual is captured who may work as part of a larger cell or organization that is a known threat, military or terror, the individual is likely to have been trained to decline to give any information. With a military type, no amount of words are going to convince them otherwise and the only option then would be to make threats, but what can you threaten them with if not pain through torture? With terrorism in particular, if there is a known connection to them and a terror organization then why should human rights protect the terrorists secrets rather than gain information pertaining to the whereabouts of their training facilities, safe houses and targets?
If someone is about to bomb a place, and one person has information that can stop that bombing, saving millions of lives, then torture in order to extract that information is justified. Hurting one person can save millions. If the U.S. had a person that knew about the 911 situation before it happened, then we could have gone out of our way to find that information and stop the tragedy from ever happening.
I can see both sides to this argument however I lean towards supporting torture under some circumstances. Such circumstances would mainly be in order to save or preserve the larger (numbers wise) community/society. For instance, imagine a nuclear device in a major city that a person in custody could "potentially" know something about. Any amount of accurate information is valuable no matter the cost. But, how do you ensure the accuracy of the information? It's fair to say no-one can know, for certain, what someone is thinking or what they know exactly or even if they are telling the exact truth. This unfortunately leads to uncertainty as to whether useful, accurate information can be extracted. A more useful question lies in where does the level of certainty need to lie before someone has the "justification" to torture for information - and only then, how do they ensure the accuracy of information?
If you torture someone for information they will eventually tell you what you need to know. People will say that it doesn't get you accurate information, but if they tell you something that is false then you keep torturing them until they tell you what you need to know. This proves torture gets you answers.
I think that if it benefits more people than it will hurt (for instance the military tortures one man to save hundreds) then it is okay. It's better that one man dies than a whole big group of people, don't you think? The life of one bad guy isn't as valuable as 100 good people's lives.
Most people would not consider torture to be their first form of defense when interrogating a suspect that has allegedly planted a bomb. But if the bomb is going to kill a thousand lives, this criminal should not be given the same human rights as the rest of us. HE CHOSE TO BOMB US. We need to do everything possible to save these lives. When people are hired as police officers they pledge to all Americans that they will do everything in their power to save them. I'm not saying lets go around torturing everybody, but I don't think we should ever rule it out.
Because torture send a strong message to future offenders. Much like capital punishment, people will think twice before committing a crime. If the safety of 100,000 can be saved by the 30 minute torture of one person, then so be it. It is a necessary evil in the age of global terrorism.
People always look too sympathetically and don't look at the real picture. We need to realize we don't water board or torture any average joe. We only do so when we can't get results from people who have either committed national crimes or killed innocent people. We have received more results from torture than not.
You tell me that if you had under custody a war criminal who has information about a imminent terrorist attack on a mass population, you wouldn't torture them to gent answers? Sure, one might argue that the end never justifies the means, but in wartime, which has become our permanent state, if the end implies saving thousands of people, then strong people are needed to carry out the means necessary.
Are your morals more important than the lives of thousands of other innocent civilians.Do you prefer waiting for a terrorist to say something because torturing would hurt your ethical values?The interrogators have overwhelming evidence to believe that they have the right man. They can check anything he says to see if he is lying, because of the other intelligence they have gathered. However, he is refusing to disclose the location of the bomb under interrogation.The three reasons5 torture is justified in this scenario are that, firstly there is a specific time pressure and the knowledge that there is no other possible to way to retrieve the information. Secondly, on a utilitarian calculus, the benefits to many outweigh the cost to one man. Thirdly, because the man is strongly assumed to be guilty, he deserves punishment anyway for his actions.
At times torture can be acceptable to use in a ticking time bomb case. If that information isn't recieved in time many people could die and if torture is against your morals then you don't need to be supportive, just know that information taken from a terriorst could save your life.
An eye for an eye. If rapists can torture innocent little girls, they deserved to be tortured. In America, crime and punishment isn't taken seriously anymore. Thus, more people are committing crimes. If punishment for crime was as serious and as terrible as the crime itself, maybe less crimes would be committed. Serving minimum sentences, getting out early for "good behavior" and parole? WTF has happened to our country!
First off I want to say if you are a citizen of the country that is torturing you I believe it is wrong no matter the circumstance. However if you are a foreigner and another country believes you know information that is so valuable that are willing to torture you, then yes it is acceptable. Torture can save the lives of the innocent.
In a way i do agree with the other side. The UN goes to other countries and tells them not to torture or kill or anything like that but they are deciding to torture the Boston bombers so how can they tell other people not to. But i do agree it is fair people put fear in our hearts and now we cant torture them and find out why and who helped it wont benefit us to upgrade our security. Torture can be very helpful.
Some people deserve it. Not everyone can be saved from the wrong they are doing and if they keep doing it than torture by all means. Some of the "No," are a bunch and goodies. No human being doesn't like to watch their enemies get hurt. Everybody wants retribution and blood payed in full.
Torturing doesn't always have to be hurtful, also it doesn't always have to be with someone innocent. If the U.S captures a man part of a crime then he should be able to be "tortured" in order to find the main evil force. Torturing a person could be more of a short term physical or mental but only to get answers for a good cause.
Let me explain, first of all we can all agree that killing is wrong. If not you got some problems. Torture is inflicting pain on somebody and sometimes causing injury. So let's look at what the opposing view says. They say torture is never justified. I was confused when I read this but after reading some arguments it makes since. If we torture somebody what makes us better than the people we are torturing? I thought about this statement really hard and though I thought it was valid I saw a flaw. Which is worse killing people or torturing people? I think the reason I find it not so horrible is because I see torture as a punishment to save lives. However, I don't believe in killing anyone though torture. O and before the people on the opposing side say I am a monster bla bla bla. Listen, I believe that we should use other methods to receive information first. Torture should be the last resort in a circumstance in which time is of the essence. Such as a bomb or circumstance like kidnapping. I don't believe in torturing somebody for something that has already happened such as a murder. The reason is when you do that you are not getting any information to save a life but rather just the pleasure of torturing.
Torture has different levels. Slapping, tickling, hitting, grounding, poking are sonsequences you give to your children, friends, siblings. Did you know that all these actions are different ways of torture. Torture is needed to teach people what they can do or what they cannot do. For example, you ground your children for not doing their homework and you hit or slap your friend for going out with your boyfriend so that they will not do the same mistake again. Bigger example is in China, they torture burglars and murderers to show citizens they consequence of wrong-doing so that they will never do the same thing.
Taking someone elses life is never acceptable. There are Mother, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, and plenty more that have to live with missing and wanting the innocent life that was taken. Torture should be a punishment, and the supspect dies during the process, oh well, the safer the world will be.
National security is one of the most important things to a country. I feel that the security services should be able to do anything they wish in order to protect the nation from an attack. After all, they are trying to take away people's basic human right, a right to life.
There are torture techniques that are harmless, but they can cause people to panic and "spill the beans". If you hold a knife to some ones throat or dump water on their face it doesnt really harm them, but it can scare the captured terroist into giving us vital information.
If a family member was in imminent danger than torture would be justified in my mind. I don't think torture should be carried out unless there is enough evidence that they might be harboring information that may lead to a resolution. This is where the problem lays, what if you get the wrong person and they sincerely know nothing.
Torture is justified because of the fact that some enjoy the pain. Learning to take the pleasures from the punishment that they take. People getting a slap on the hand or sitting in jail is not going to let them learn their lesson. You have to break them to make them pay for their evil deeds. You have to break them physically and emotionally.
As Peter Faris said it would be acceptable to use torture in criminal investigations."A psychopathic murderer has buried a teenage girl alive and he is captured by the police," an example on Mr Faris's web blog says. "He refuses to say where she is. He taunts the police with his knowledge. Torture is acceptable to find the girl and to save her life."
Torture is acceptable with in a 'ticking bomb scenario' or when innocents lives are at risk. When you have radicalized people committing bombing crimes against a mass of people, like radical Jihadists towards Christians. If you have established that "we will do what is necessary" in order to protect the whole, then it is necessary. If you should discipline, it sets an example for those that go against the basic human rights.
You may be in a life threatening situation, and the only way to save you and all the people may be to torture someone to get the valuable information that is needed. Although the information given may not be 100% reliable, it's better than nothing, right? Torturing may just make the person do the complete opposite of what was intended. So really, it depends on the situation you are in.
Would you have stopped Allied soldiers from torturing a Nazi to get to Hitler. I doubt it. People keep saying torture is never justified no matter who the victim is. Is that one life worth two or three or thousands? Hitler attempted genocide. It is obviously worth it to torture one and save thousands.
Torture genuinely can be justified, bare in mind that a lot of people from the countries that you may be living in are kept as prisoners of war for no particular reason. Remember 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'? In all of these western countries in Asia, it seems to be normal.
I believe torture is justified when human lives are at stake in one way, shape, or form. For example if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and we had a terrorist (in custody) that had inside knowledge of the planes being used against us, then put me in coach I will handle it myself. I also believe that it depends on the history of the individual. So if person T were to have a a terrible background like rape, human trafficking, or murder. Again do what needs to be done....
I will give the following scenario as an example:
There is a bomb that will detonate in New York very soon. The person who planted the bomb is the only one who knows its whereabouts, and is currently within US custody. The investigators have sufficient evidence to prove that the man in custody is the one who planted the bomb. The man refuses to give the location of the bomb under regular interrogation.
Is it just to use torture in this situation?
Assume that torturing will lead to the diffusion of the bomb, and to save 1 million lives.
Taking the saved lives into account, the benefits far outweigh the costs, justifying the decision.
There is also the matter of the man's guilt. He planned to kill 1 million people, removing their right to life, thereby losing his own right to happiness. The man is guilty, and is a potential murderer. The death penalty could even be just in this situation.
Torture lite is a type of torture that is conducted by skilled physicians who work for the government and make sure that nothing happens to the suspect that is permanent. The doctor would be the one that conducts the torture while another individual interrogates the suspect. The physician is skilled in both psychology and medicine so that none of the methods used against the suspect are permanent mentally and physically. This type of advanced interrogation includes, but is not limited to, sleep deprivation, needles underneath the suspects nails, use of drugs, and exposure to extreme temperatures. I believe that if we are to use torture I would much rather have it be torture lite rather than the techniques that are used in other places i.E Syria, Lebanon, Egypt.
Terrorists would torture and kill you. They should be shown the same courtesy they're not people they're trash. Do what must be done and dispose of them. Innocent lives can be saved they are not innocent lives. They take innocent lives and do not deserve to be treated humanly.
In many cases where there are hostages or in very drastic terrorist cases, torture is needed in order to save more lives from these horrible men. If torture could save lives, then it is beneficial and logical to use torture. If you were a parent of a victim in the recent Connecticut shooting, wouldn't you wish to find these people and make sure they didn't have a group working with them or an employer? This is how it is in all cases and it definitely plays with people's since of morality.
While agreeing with many of the arguments for the use of torture, as a UK citizen it feels like many Americans feel that the term 'US citizen' connotes a sense of higher being. Just a fabricated example but when I see comments saying "torturing a terrorist can save an American life" it really annoys me. 'Innocent life' would serve the purpose just as well. It's not only Americans who are in danger from terrorism. The phrases 'saves a US citizen' irritates me further since US citizenship is being revered here as something to be praised and protected. What if someone who wasn't a US citizen was in danger? I'm definitely not saying they wouldn't be protected to the same extent, but you couldn't use the 'save a US citizen' phrase in your argument any more and I feel it wouldn't convince people in the same way that mentioning their citizenship attempts to. Just a thought.
What if a terrorist captured your family and took them to a secret location? Like the bomb scenario, the authorities have managed to capture one of the terrorists but he won't give up the location. Would you have any qualms about using torture to extract the information, even if that information might be faulty?
What if a terrorist captured your family and took them to a secret location? Like the bomb scenario, the authorities have managed to capture one of the terrorists but he won't give up the location. Would you have any qualms about using torture to extract the information, even if that information might be faulty?
Basically terrorists have been torturing American soldiers as far back as I can remember. If they are not following the rules why should we then have to?. That puts us at a very unfair advantage. If American lives can be saved by using some form of "torture", and im not talking about cutting fingers off or anthign drastic like that, then it should most definitely be allowed. Osama Bin Laden was killed in direct corellation to information that was obtained during a interrogation in Guantanamo Bay which almost certainly were using those techniques. This is the reason why these people do this shit, the think America is soft because of all the liberal pussies out there.
So, from a legal point of view, under no circumstances is torturing that man acceptable. In doing so, you would be breaching the agreement, and be subject to a trial. However, from a moral side of view, which is the one most people would come from, if you tortured the man, and he revealed the locations of the bombs, and you could clear the areas before they went off, surely the fact that both he and everyone that was in danger has survived, this is better that all those people dying?
The application of small amount of pain, with the possibility of higher levels of pain, can and does help to break a prisoner's will to resist.
I don't want to see pain or the threat of pain used as a punishment, but used as one of many tools that an interrogator may apply to get reliable information from an unlawful enemy combatant.
An interrogator should use any and all techniques to get a detainee to tell the truth.
Give them a cigarette, good food, become their pal...If they lie to you, into the light box, give them a little electrical motivation, or water boarding, nothing that is permanent just momentary pain and leave it open for more.
Break them mentally to get the information, but keep the physical stuff to a minimum and use it sparingly. But get the information as quick as possible as reliable as possible.
Our enemies fight with no rules and laugh at our hand wringing. We need to become more ruthless and gain their respect or fear. Either will work as long as they leave our citizens alone.
If police are willing to shoot a criminal to save civilians, and murderers are executed to prevent more murders, why can we not commit a lesser evil for a far greater good? What's worse: the tough interrogation of a terrorist, or the mass murder of men, women, and children? It is imperative we put the safety of the nation before the constitutional rights of a single criminal. Is torture against the constitution? Probably. But if we don't make sacrifices and torture terrorists for information, there won't be a constitution to protect.
Morality, for me, is based on minimizing human suffering. If you have the opportunity to save many lives, at the cost of torturing one person who may be responsible, I think it is justified. Lot's of people seem to use a 'torture should not be done because torture is bad' argument, or similarly 'God does like torture'. These people need to think one step further, and ask 'would God prefer one man to suffer, or many to die?'. I personally do not believe in the jealous abrahamic sky-god (or any interventionist God for that matter), and this is largely because of the way it inhibits critical thinking on issues pertaining to morality. Morality is not about pleasing a celestial dictator. It is about thinking critically about your beliefs and actions, as to minimize human suffering.
If your country is in danger and you have someone in custody that you know knows something, and it's the only way to get information out of him, it is better to torture one man and save millions of lives. For example if we had a man in custody the week before 9/11, it would have saved all those lives.
Terrorists are willing to blow themselves up to achieve their goal, nothing less than torture will make them talk. Someone who is willing to die for his cause isn't going to talk with being forced to through immense pain... People need to stop looking at things like it's a perfect world where you don't have to do stuff like this.
Torture can be justified if it will save a lot of people. If a thousand people are going to be killed and the only way that you can prevent them from getting killed is to torture one person then I do believe that torture is morally right. So, in some cases torture can be justified, but it isn't always right.
When it comes to the military, we need to give them what they require to preform the job to their fullest. If they honestly think that torture can help them get information and make their job easier, then yes, it is justifiable. It is the military, and sometimes you have to work with the devil and be a little immoral to make people safe.
The ticking time-bomb scenario.
You are a chief investigator of CIA (or whatever), there is a bomb somewhere that you know is going to go off very soon due to prior investigation. The man, or woman, in front of you is the only one with sufficient information to save the world. You know they have been trained never, ever to give away information and that they fear the torture back home worse than yours.
Then you have to torture them because threats alone will never do it.
Torture would not be my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice to get information out of someone, but if the people I loved were in danger. I would barely hesitate. If my mom, dad, brothers, friends, girlfriend, or most other people were put in danger and I needed to get them out. I might torture. Straight fact of life.
The people who are justifiably tortured would do the same to you. The people who are justifiably tortured are going to be terrorists or anyone that knows something that could save a lot of people. If you could save a lot of people and just have to torture one bad guy to do it, of course it's okay.
I believe that in specific cases, torture should be justifiable. National security is of the highest importance to any country and when this is threatened, members of special services will feel the need to use methods of torture. In the 21st Century, torture has become much more humane, there are no cases now of people being hung upside down and hacked to pieces... methods are much more psychological. Sensory isolation, which simply relies on the weakness of the human brain is being used more and more. So if government agencies can use methods such as these to retrieve information from terrorists who might put the lives of many people in danger then torturing them to find information, or prevent it from happening may be the lesser of two evils, and provide an outcome that is for the greater good.
I can see both sides to this argument however lean towards supporting torture under some circumstances. Such circumstances would mainly be in order to save or preserve the larger (numbers wise) community/society. For instance, imagine a nuclear device in a major city that a person in custody could "potentially" know something about. Any amount of accurate information is valuable no matter the cost. But, how do you ensure the accuracy of the information? It's fair to say no-one can know, for certain, what someone is thinking or what they know exactly or even if they are telling the exact truth. This unfortunately leads to uncertainty as to whether useful, accurate information can be extracted. A more useful question lies in where does the level of certainty need to lie before someone has the "justification" to torture for information - and only then, how do they ensure the accuracy of information?
Torture can be justified under some circumstances (albeit, only a few)
Only if it is the ONLY way to get information that could potentially save millions. But that is subjective, as you never know if people will lie.
The use of torture is a very important tool in warfare. If it takes torturing 100 enemies to save the life of one U.S. citizen, then I do feel it is justified. The terrorists are aware that, if captured, they will certainly face some form of torture, yet they continue their plans to kill innocent people. I believe torture should be available for both foreign and domestic terrorists, and anyone who chooses to be a part of killing innocent men, women and children forfeits their human rights.
I think torture can be justified in situations where someone is in danger. The person who has the information, the suspect, can be tortured in order to find the person in danger. The suspect should not hold such information and allow someone to be possibly hurt or killed. Torture may help the person in danger find safety.
Torture can be justified. After 9/11, some terrorists, that were caught that weren't able to carry out their deeds, were tortured with water boarding, and other methods, and this did yield some information. If it will get us information that could save hundreds of lives, torture can be acceptable.
There are many situations where torture doesn't work, however, in certain situations it has provided valuable information. If an enemy soldier is captured with knowledge of troop movements or decoding information they will not likely give up that information willingly. Torture in this situation, while inhumane, will potentially save thousands of lives. While not completely reliable once there is a direction and some information it can be verified.
If torture saves innocent lives, like those of 9/11, I believe harsh interrogation is justifiable. Think of all those who lost their loved ones on that horrendous day. Do you think that if "torture" saved their loved ones life that day they'd be for it? Of course they would, because it saved 2 lives, their loved ones life and the perpetrators life.
War is ugly. Terrorism is ugly. Crime against one another is ugly. The world we live in is full of sinful people who have no regard for life. How then do we as law abiding peaceful people protect our families and loved ones from those who would choose to do harm to us? We have to have a means in which we can safetly protect those who are innocent. If "torture" or harsh interrogations are the way to do it, then it must be done but only in extreme instances.
If I knew that I could save the lives of tens, hundreds, thousands, millions or more, I would definitely consider it worth causing someone pain to get the information necessary to save those lives. I do not believe that there is ever any other reason that justifies torture besides the saving of innocent lives, though.
In war our first duty is to save American lives. If we must torture to make sure more sons and daughters come home from a war zone then we do. No one wants to do it but the information could save lives then what is there to discuss? Americans comes first to America.
If torturing a terrorist saves 20 innocent lives, by all means it is justified. It's a question of what's at stake. Of course though, it should only be used under extreme circumstances.
In SOME situations torture is beneficial. It's simple utilitarian logic: if torturing one person saves 100, 50, 10, hell even 2 people from dying, the act was a beneficial act.
If the torture brings about saving more lives then i believe it is justified.
There are moral arguments for torture, for example if you know with certainty that many people will die unless you torture one person. The problems with torture are the unknowns, how does one know if the information is true and not given under duress. The biggest problem with torture is that it is not efficient or reliable. Torture also cannot be practiced without abuse and ruinous side effects to the legal system and morale.
There are only a few cases where torture can be justified but these deserve physical punishment nonetheless. For example if someone has been proven to commit a murder but refuses to give up any accomplices then torture is justified. The other perpetrators have to be brought to justice and the murder has taken someone's life so torture is justified.
I believe in certain circumstances torturing is justified. In America we have given softer prison sentences to individuals who have done some of the most disgusting crimes. When they get out of prison, nearly all criminals at something will make it back to our prisons. Torturing would help decrease the crime rate by making criminals not want to get into trouble again. We are too easy on our fellow prisoners.
Torture can be justified if and only if it is conflicted upon those who physically and emotionally torture others. Standing behind the saying 'an eye for an eye', it is important for these individuals to be able to experience the pain and suffering they put someone else through intentionally. Torture is not an act that someone can do and pass along as an attempt that was unintended. Once they get a taste of their own medicine can justice be done to their victims. Imprisonment means nothing in serving punishment for something severe like this and execution would put too quick of an end to the price they should be paying for hurting others.
There is such a debate about torture. I cannot even begin to fathom the pain endured by those who were being tortured. Say for a moment the following contains no errors: Your daughter is being held by a sociopath who will kill her, and the sociopath's partner was captured by you. You can either let your daughter die, or torture the partner to get the location of your daughter. You've exhausted all other means of getting the information. Would you do it?
Those who say torture is okay should be tortured. They will not hold the same opinion, guaranteed.
Torture is not just a word. Don't distance yourself from torture while you form such a vile and truly WRONG opinion. Torture is absolutely NEVER okay. It is never justified.
Those who agree with torture are obviously, TORTURERS. I say let THEM experience it, so they know what they're advocating for.
It is EVIL and never, ever okay. I'd like to see any one of these "advocates" say that they're willing to be tortured, or that they'd accept being tortured.
That, is the better question.
I'm guessing most of you who said YES are either brainwashed Americans or have no idea what you are supportive of. TORTURE is a gruesome thing to do, no matter who the victim is. I am sure that there are many other ways of finding out the information you need, without losing your humanity. Torture is what people were using in ancient times, am I naive to believe that humanity has evolved since then? If you are supporting things like torture, you are definitely supporting the involution of your status as a human being.
EVEN if someone deserved to be tortured, which many who are illegally tortured do not, nobody has the right to deliberately harm another human being with the intention of causing the maximum physical and emotional pain. That is the most twisted, sadistic, cruel behavior imaginable and it is as inhumane as our rivals. A popular "YES" commentator had the audacity to state: "Give them a little electrical motivation, or water boarding, nothing that is permanent just momentary pain…" ARE YOU INSANE. Waterboarding means literally drowning someone to death and then bringing them back to life a moment later. You are physiologically drowning them over and over and over again, killing them over and over and over again, and this is not only physically traumatizing but emotionally destroying. It is one of the most extreme forms of torture known. Before you make uneducated claims trivializing the cruelty, sadism and inhumane treatment you support, at least try to even vaguely comprehend the magnitude of its impact on the human body and psyche. Torture is the ULTIMATE violation of another human being's basic human rights, and nothing and nobody has the right to violate them. Thus torture is unacceptable in any case. Our enemies may laugh at our hand wringing, but it is the very inhumanity and chaos, the inability to use diplomacy and appreciate peace, that we disdain in them and struggle against when it is directed towards us and the innocent among them. Becoming "more ruthless" will just antagonize them further or encourage them to compete. As a nation we have to set a role model of humanity and respect of everyone's equal rights.
There is not a person in this world that deserves torture. People might say that there are bad people out there, but I think not. There are no bad people, just good people making bad decisions. People can change their ways. Put them in jail or a mental help facility, and give them counseling. Torture is primitive, unhuman, unjust, and cruel.
Torture brings about unreliable information (for instance, two men being tortured in Guantanamo Bay confessed to being two men in a video featuring Osama bin Laden; after confessing, they were proven to be innocent) which destroys the likelihood of it saving more lives than not.
to torture torturers? What does that make us? Just monsters on the other side of the table.
How can certain countries be considered as barbaric when all countries implement torture? Look at the United States, they consider themselves as a "civil" country when they set up Guantanamo Bay and tortured prisoners (some coming out to be completely innocent). Waterboarding, drowning, sleep deprivation, humiliation, sexual abuse, and burnings have occurred there. Yet they consider themselves as civil human beings. It is so sad to see people in the world be convinced that the leaders actually care about them as their heads fill up with ideologies with minimal to no truth in them. This world is so corrupt and I really get upset seeing people believing the things they hear in the media. No one knows how to think for themselves anymore.
You can never justify torture. That is like saying that just because someone stole cookies, you could torture them. Torturing someone is not okay no matter what they did. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished; You can and should punish them. But there is a difference between punishing and torturing.
You may all be able to come up with hypothetical situations that at the time seem like a feasible way to extract information for a greater good. A bomb in a primary school type scenario. The truth is that allowing torture to be a legitimate use or means of extraction of information leaves it open for abuse and in the hands of a dictator or tyrant, who will not be held accountable for there actions it is putting the lives of many people at risk. The damage that legitimizing torture could do on a world scale is immeasurable. It is horrible to think that incidents like Abu Ghraib where Iraqi prisoners where dehumanized could be excused as strategic torture in an attempt to get information (which they never got as the people they were torturing were only SUSPECTED to have information). The things they did to those human beings makes me sick. Google it, it is actually fkd!
As far as I'm aware, there is two types of torture, physical and mental. Both are never justified. While I would admit that the threat of torture is situationally effective, it is never the best choise. At best, you get information by scaring people. At worst, you get false (or even made up) informaiton by prisoners who did nothing wrong. Torture as a punishment does nohing but strethen the conflict. If say, Narnia (or a different country) kidnapps your parents and tortures them, how would you feel? I bet you would want to get revenge on Narnia wouldn't you? It is a cycle that will always continue.
Torture is obviously not justified. Even if someone has done something really bad or even inhuman they shouldn't be tortured. In my opinion they should be punished, not mistreated. Everybody deserves a minimum of respect. If what they did was that bad then they should get to say goodbye to their love ones and get sentenced to a fast and easy death at the worst, not decapitated and beaten!
I survived torture of the current regime in Sudan, the worst of its kind because it takes the religious justification.
The waiting period for torture session to start is the worst kind of torture. No wonder many people commit suicide during this time, if they were lucky and managed to find the right tool.
This is disgusting.
Most of the reasons found in the Yes arguments come from personal agendas and personal reasons. Just because they think it feels good to get revenge on someone doesn't make torture justifiable. Just because they think that a person should suffer for making other people suffer does not justify torture. Justifying torturing someone because YOU feel that it is justified by some personal emotional agenda is not only selfish, it is wrong. You, nor anyone, are determinate in a person's human rights. The problem with this issue is that there is yet to be defined a clear definition of torture. In my view, it is torture when it invades someone's space or physically violates their body and mind in some way--non-invasive methods of interrogation, however, aren't torture unless it goes above the acceptable limits and then causes harm (such as sound persuasion.)
I think we can all take a note from history here. The Inquisition killed thousands of people. Thousands of innocent people who were branded as heretics. Upon simply being pointed out as a heretic, you were arrested and you were tortured in the most cruel and severe ways until you confessed. If you did not confess you were burned alive. What were they confessing to? Many people were innocent, they just simply got on someones bad side. If someone was to put you in a rack and slowly pull all your bones out of socket, or rip your finger/toe nails off one by one, along with your teeth one by one with a pair of pliers, have molten hot metal rods inserted into your rectum. You will tell them you are god or the devil himself to get them to stop what they were doing to you. Anyone who believes that torture is perfectly acceptable, need to themselves be tortured to the point of death, make them beg for death. Then ask these people again once its all over, Do you still favor torture? 100% of these hypothetical people would quickly vote to outlaw torture and condemn it for the barbaric and sadist act that it is. If it is your desire/wish/acceptance to inflict such travesties upon people, you yourself are not a human being and nothing but a monster and should be put down as such.
Imagine torture being legally implemented? Giving the State the right to torture a HUMAN BEING is a) Unconstitutional b) Ethically/Morally wrong c) Impractical d) Archaic c) Dangerous. Firstly, how can reliable intelligence ever be gained from torture? By Evolution, in it in our very nature as humans to shy away from pain. The victim will tell anyone willing to listen anything they want to hear to make it stop. They are not concerned with giving accurate information. Secondly, while torture remains illegal, any so-called evidence gained cannot be used in court. Thirdly, by permitting torture in one case i.e. terrorism, you're setting a precedent. Do we want a torture culture? For example, low-ranking soldiers tortured for sport in grotesque ways in Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. This leads me to another point- do we really want to countries such as the USA, one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, the right to torture for information? Despite there being too numerous reasons for forbidding torture, both practical and moral, for me it all comes down to this. I don't want to be tortured and I don't want others to be tortured in the name of ideologies like "the greater good", or "the ends justify the means". No amount of lives saved is worth our humanity.
Not only is torture barbaric in and of itself, it has never worked. Victims merely give as many lies as they can to end it. Also torturing enemy POWs would seem to give the opposing side the right to do the same to yours, at least in their minds - if you don't observe the Geneva Convention, why should they? Many give examples such as "what if a bomb was about to go off" but in the time it takes to capture, transport and interrogate a prisoner, even if they give the correct answer, it will most likely have gone off. Why give the opposing side an excuse to do the same to your own? It's also unconstitutional (you have a right to trial, fair treatment etc.) if anyone still pays any attention to the constitution anymore other than Amendment #2...
I do not believe in torture I feel it is not a necessary. I don't feel that criminals or anyone being tortured feels any remorse for what they have done. There is just the pain of the moment. It is not true justice it breeds hatred and contempt for the punisher. Only people that have no compassion makes torturing apart of their punishment practices.
Torture should never be an option for any reason. All people across the world have an inborn right to be free from harm and bringing pain and suffering to a person for the purpose of information gathering is a crime against humanity. Especially because one could be torturing someone that actually has no information and may give false information to the torturer to get them to stop.
Regardless of what you call it, torture is something that is both morally and ethically wrong and goes against the very foundations of what this country is suppose to believe in. There is a long and establish history of the American government trying to be opposed to torture. In addition to that numerous studies have shown that torture does not work. When someone is being tortured they will admit to anything that they think the torture is wanting to hear in an effort to make the torture stop. Just looking at the events and testimonies of the Salem Witch trials alone proves this. There is no reason to expect that it would suddenly start working now when it did not work then.
Torture is an absolutely barbaric and archaic practice and is never justifiable in a civilized society. If someone doesn't want to talk about something that they are required by law to talk about then you can send them to jail, but you can't cause them physical pain. Torturing is a practice that has no place in a modern world.
It says it in the Bible and in the constitution that torture is not legal or humane. I agree that these men/women feel that what they may be doing is right but we cannot replace that with another wrong. I also agree that these people forfeit their rights but torture is not the way to go. The end never justifies the means.
Torture is a disgusting act and should never be perpetrated against anyone or anything, especially another human being. Torturing a torturer makes you no better than they. All methods of torture are not only emotionally destroying but physically excruciating and putting anyone through that kind of experience is completely and utterly barbaric.
I want to ask you, is torture acceptable in anyway possible? How can you claim to say that torture is acceptable no matter what the reason may be. Plus if this torture is done for interrogation purposes, how can you guarantee that torture will force the person to spill out the truth?
Torture is not acceptable at all...... it is a human right. And the way they tortured the Jews in the 2nd World War was disgusting and they were innconent and their lives were lost for nothing! People who torture other people are just sick.... I could not even imagine doing some of the tortures to other people, let alone do it myself.
I imagine those who have said 'yes' are generally those who have never been tortured. It's always easy to say (and believe) that you or your side can justify doing something as terrible as torture, because you will be in the "right". But once an action such as torture is instigated, it is impossible to truthfully remain on the moral high ground if you are the torturer. You may try to convince yourself all you like - that you are potentially saving innocent lives/protecting others. But imagine you were one of these supposed innocents who had been "saved" as a result of a "terrorist" having been tortured. Would you feel comfortable knowing that you had lived at the cost of someone else's immense suffering or even their death?
Just because the person being torture may be involved in a harmful organisation or campaign, there is never any justification for the deliberate maiming of human beings. We should always say no to these kinds of things, especially if, by our emotions, we instinctively feel that we must hurt or kill others because they have somehow done us wrong. Using the argument of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is also detrimental to our progress as rational, conscious beings. If we were to accept that idea, then any terrorists would also be perfectly justified in what they are doing, as they most likely feel that WE have wronged them somehow, either as individuals or as a society.
So don't just say yes because you think it will benefit you and your way of thought. There is always a reaction to an action, and an action such as torture can only bring a terrible backlash. Only say yes if you are truly willing to take the responsibility of causing another human being intolerable pain and degradation, as well as being willing to accept that by acknowledging torture as a "perfectly reasonable and acceptable" method of treating another human being under certain circumstances, this can be turned to apply to you also. Nobody is exempt, even those who think themselves to be on higher moral ground. We only realize this when the hurtful measures that we have endorsed in order to "protect" ourselves is turned against us. Actions that stem from fear and hatred can only inspire reactions in the same vein. A method such as torture never ends anything. It can only fuel the cycle of conflict within humankind.
War inevitably brings death, destructions and suffering, which ruin both lives and nations. Some people believe it can be in exceptional circumstances, while others believe that it can never be justified and there is no circumstance in which it can be justified.War can be justified depends on the purpose of the war. If nations declare war to expand their territory or to fulfill their greed, it is unjustifiable. War is an immoral event that ruins humanity and the dignity of people, but, if it is to protect something that they are living for, such as a religion, a war might be justified. For example some religions culture can also effects war. They have fought for a long time because of their different religions. Their goal is to serve their religion and to extend their extreme beliefs. They were aware of countless deaths from the war, but humanity and dignity meat nothing without their religion. Wars can't be justified, people can fight over religion, power, land, or freedom but really most people want more than they need and are greedy. People die every day just to fight for their country and live a normal life. Why can't
First, it gives gov't the power to torture people, which unquestionably breaks limits on its power. Second, conventional methods are as or more successful at gaining information, and third, the US military advises its members not to torture captives, as it is "not helpful" and "counter intuitive". It is a slippery slope so that gov't tortures its citizens for information period, and also is inhumane and increases resentment and terrorism against the USA.
For starters, as Americans we are suppose to be better than that, we are suppose to be the "bigger person" and be intelligent enough to find humane and civil means of finding out information. As a country that is suppose to stand for freedom and human rights we cannot stoop down to a level that is barbaric and inhumane. We have to be the example for how a country is suppose to run, not the country that everyone is fears. Not to mention, torture does not guarantee 100% accurate information. Personally, if someone were torturing me I would do everything in my power to ensure they were given false information as to make their situation more difficult, not help assist the individuals torturing me. If we are incapable of finding information ethically and legally than we do not deserve the information in the first place.
You can never, NEVER, get reliable information from torture. What if what the the person who was tortured gave incorrect information just because he wanted the pain to stop? The person could just lie his way out of torture anyway (although... that's improbable). The most troubling thing about it is that there's always the chance that you are just torturing an innocent, and you can't get any good out of him anyway. It's cruel, barbaric, and unreliable. It should NEVER be used, under any circumstance.
Just try. The people you see as "bad" probably feel justified in their actions. Think about that.
Society has gone nowhere because the "eye for an eye" attitude exists. Harm is harm, killing is killing.
It is the refusal and forgetting of basic humanity. You are a human, not a bloodthirsty coward.
Harming anyone when they are rendered helpless is cowardly.
The use of torture is never justified. It is barbaric and immoral to treat another human being completely without compassion. Violence only breeds more violence. The justification for torture is often stated in convincing terms: it prevents deaths and violence. But, the end result will always be more violence. As far as I know, humans are the only species that resorts to using torture. This, alone, should indicate that there is something extremely wrong with it. It is unnatural and serves no positive purpose.
Torture is morally wrong. People should not have someone else punish them in that fashion, when they are really not sure that that person is guilty, or has information they want. There are many other ways to get information from someone, and everyone should be treated equally. Jail time for some real convicts works, but torture should never be an option.
Torture is wrong and should not be used on that basis alone. We can't provide this as an example to the rest of the world as a way to conduct ourselves. Torture also tends to acquire misinformation because often the tortured will tell the torturer what they think they want to hear.
While many may disagree, I feel that any form of "torture" is not justified, simply because the person in question is generally only acting under the orders of a superior officer or personnel (who, in most cases, is never seen in times of battle). A person is guilty or not. If they're guilty, then sentence them (to death if necessary). If they're not guilty, set them free.
In addition, I also feel that those who are best qualified to answer this question are those who have been (or are currently) active in military battle, because only they truly know what it feels like to participate in war, potentially be captured or killed.
I oppose torture in any form. I would hope our society as a while is against this as a way to receive information from someone or to punish them. We have a court system and prisons to use for a punishment for people who will not give up information or who have done wrong and torture should never be used in any way, shape or form. I even believe when it comes to illegal terrorists that torture should not be used.
Many people say torture is necessary because of the lives it will save, and that the end justifies the means. However, I believe a saying I heard once (I don't know who to attribute it to) that "The ends do not justify the means. There are no ends. There are only means." We cannot get a good outcome from a bad action, especially done consistently. If we use torture, then where can we say terrorism is bad? They could use the same argument: the ends justify the means. Terrorists have legitimate grievances, but instead of solving them in peaceful ways they use the worst and most terrifying and heartless violence they can think of. That is why they are terrorists. No one cares about their ends at all, they only care about their means, and that is what they are judged on. If I torture someone, then someday it might be my turn. Then how will I be righteously indignant about my treatment, when what was done to me is no worse than what I did to others? Whether or not you are a fan of the Bible, everyone understands and agrees with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Everyone (except maybe a terrorist) would agree these are fine sentiments. How do we mesh them with torture? Especially in the United States, we pride ourselves on being a decent, honorable and fair people, who abhor the violence and cruelty practiced in the world by some other governments. Then we would practice torture? That violates all that we think we are, all that we want others to think we are. How much credibility do our fine ideals have around the world if we would under any circumstances approve of torture? Anyway, it does not work. People will say anything to escape torture. How do you know you got the truth or just disinformation? What if the person really doesn't have the information you want and you are torturing them for nothing? How monstrous is that? I would want no part of it.
It is literally the worst thing you can do to someone. LITERALLY. Let me spell it out really simple. The only people who deserve to be tortured are those who commit torture. In rare cases it might be necessary to ensure survival of people, but it better damn well be deserving.
I oppose all form of tortures even in the famous ticking time bomb situation because the results that are gathered are unreliable and torture is breaking international law and several treaties. United States have demonstrated excellent rule bending in order to torture to get "valuable intel". It would be better to interrogate them normally which has always produced positive results and doesn't break human rights.
To begin with, torture is an unreliable means of information extraction. It's difficult to ascertain whether or not that information is true. It also creates a real risk to our judicial system. Eventually , any human will wrongly confess to a crime to avert further torture. Confessions under duress put innocent people behind bars, weaken our already failing judicial system and make tyrannical overthrow of government all the easier. No torture ever.
The first flaw in this argument for torture presupposes that torture is effect. It is probably effective in the terrorist telling you what you want to hear. But wait a minute, what if he isn't a terrorist. He'll still give you information but it will be wrong. By the way, you've also created a reason for him and those who become aware of our tactics to view the US as the Great Satan.
The evidence that the ends are achieved is dubious. The idea that we would go against our values of due process, human rights, and against our international agreements in order to achieve an end that is questionable seems a bad idea to me. And I doubt that being recognized internationally as torturers of people unproven to be terrorists has increases the security and clout of the United States
No ticking bomb could have ever been stopped by torturing people. No evidence for it's effectiveness has ever been shown, a committed jihadist will simply lie. 99% (a CIA figure) of the information gained under torture was false, and how many people died while trying to investigate that information?
John McCain, Margaret Thatcher, both think it's wrong and unreliable, this isn't a lefty thing, it's a common sense thing.
It didn't work in Iraq, Ireland or anywhere else, why would it work anywhere else?
Torture is simply an endorsement of the violent acts supposedly carried out by the suspect and reflects an inhumane and cruel society. As well, torture further radicalises those against the West and thus further attacks. The information obtained as a result of torture is not reliable in any situation and has proven little since the events of 9/11.
If you torture someone, they are most likely going to tell you what you want to know. Either they know, don't know, or aren't telling. Their life is at stake and if they are more dedicated to their life than to their country/religion/family/friend, then they will tell you! This is obvious!
And most people do want to live. This is why torturing most likely works.
On another hand.
Terrorists. They try to kill themselves along with countless others. So why would they even tell you, if their main point was to try and kill themselves?
I think that torturing works.
But I don't think that it's a good thing.
It can physically and emotionally harm both the victim AND the torturer. In some cases, the torturer doesn't even want to be torturing!
It is a totally inhuman thing to do.
You're basically HURTING and possibly KILLING someone, just to get information! And it's a slow death!
Even if they have done wrong, it doesn't mean that we have to treat them in this way.
They are humans. It goes against human rights!
YOU could be in that situation, being the victim.
So think about it. Is torture ever justified?
I don't think so.
Yeah, people make all kinds of mistakes. It can be because they're mentally unstable or because they just made a wrong decision. Will torturing someone for their wrongs make you a better person? Hell no, we all have rights and we all deserve that. No matter what someone has done, they shouldn't be physically harmed for that. Torture is just as bad as killing someone, torturing is deliberately hurting someone. No torturing someone won't bring back these people who've been killed, you wish this upon them? You want their families to go through your same feelings of hatred, sorrow, and loss? You don't have to torture someone, kill someone, or physically be hateful to someone for their terrible decisions. We all make mistakes, learn from them. We only have one life, don't hurt someone for what they've done wrong. Help them see their mistakes, not get revenge for them.
Then don't suggest it for another person to have to inflict such violence. The more directly involved a person is with the conduct of torture, the more likely they are to develop posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, or anxiety. Would you have your wife have to torture a terrist? No. Would you have your husband? Your daughter or son? I think not. We are Americans, not cowards and we can fight our own battles without torture, we are too good for that. Don't be ignorant.
I was tied between two posts and wired up to a radio telephone generator. They, the military, burnt the hairs off of both arms from wrists to shoulders. Then drug me over to another post where they wrapped my ankles to the top and hung me upside down putting me in a hyperextended position. Started kicking me in the back all while pouring a canteen of water up my nose. The military said I had an upper respiratory infection, mood and personality disorder. X-rays showed a broken back. Would you allow your family and friends to be treated this way? Think about it. I don't have to, I know its wrong.
-Torture is completely immoral and unethical. It is also banned in US law, making it unconstitutional. The Geneva Conventions ban the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture” (Article 3:1(a)).
-The torture methods that were used in Guantanamo Bay included but were not limited to water boarding, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, temperature extremes, sexual assault/humiliation techniques (despite sexual violence being a war crime), and sensory bombardment (noise).
-The emotional and psychological effects of torture can be devastating. August 2003 there were 23 suicide attempts in Guantanamo Bay. These torture techniques that are so cruel and inhumane are often ineffective as a means of gathering information as well.
-Torture victims often tell the interrogator what they feel he or she wants to hear. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was water boarded 183 times on 2003, lied about knowing Bin Laden’s courier; So did Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was interrogated in 2005. Not one credible account from water boarding let the US to find Bin Laden.
-Torture jeopardizes our troop’s safety by creating more violent conditions for soldiers in the Middle East. The truth is that torture only keeps Americans safe if you don’t happen to count American soldiers as Americans.
I am a student studying torture and how it is inhumane, and I have found that there are techniques to torturing. How come we have torturing techniques but not a technique to stop the torture and crimes? When we find the solution to say it is humane to torture then maybe I will change my opinion, but as of now torture is wrong.
Could you possibly imagine being innocent, yet you're tortured everyday for information you don't have? It scares me that in a world like this, that people support it. Sure, you can say people are dying everyday and can be saved if we "force" this information out of them. But I don't want to live in a world where people are willing to hurt others, continually make them suffer with no end, just to save themselves. Or their people. In that case it might as well be a dog-eat-dog world. Is that what you want?
Because torture violates basic human rights, it treats the victim as a thing instead of a person, it shows that its ok to abuse people to get what you want, Two wrongs don't make a right! If a person is getting tortured because they tortured someone, then the torturer is just as bad as the victim, torture is cruel no matter who the victim is!
If someone does something immoral or illegal, they are still humans, and they can not just be tortured. If they need to learn their lesson and have a consequence, then they should be let to rot in jail. Ya, i know they did something tragic, like 9-11 but we can't blame them for being raised to violently and crudely. Everyone has a reason for doing something, and the people that cause harm don't know what path to follow in life. So they do immoral things. So just let them rot in jail, if that's what takes for them to change their mind about life. We are all humans, brothers, and we just have to live the harsh unfair life, and therefore no one should be killed or tortured purposely, it inhumane, just stick with the consequences, and the best one we have is making them live in jail, let them learn their lessons. Just no torture!
Danny Brown is a wise man who one time saw where a fiend owed a boss and was tortured. He swore from that day on that torture is a violation of human rights and should not be put on anyone under any circumstances. Torture is such a terrible thing that it should not be used.
What makes any human capable of deciding whether he or she should be beaten or starved? Nothing can make a human qualify to reach those standards. How dare someone believe that they are able to torture somebody. And when someone is being tortured they do or say anything to make it stop! You have no idea if the information is valid or not.
The realities of torture are not that which are widely believed by the public. For example, it is not and nor has it ever been recorded to have been the case that a single person guilty of with holding knowledge with the potential to save the lives of innocent people is tortured up to the point to which he surrenders the information in time to prevent the loss of innocent life. Utilitarian justifications of torture are often quoted / echoed in these debates, they are derived from Jeremy Bentham's original justification and often discount his important prerequisite of a fair trial.
The reality of a functional system of torture, however successful is that of institutionalized torture, which negates trail on the basis of urgency. Entire governmental departments which reward the extradition of both innocents and non innocents by local authorities. This has been shown to provide an incentive for corrupt authorities in to give over whoever they deem fit for a cash reward, thus resulting in the torture and death countless men and women as young as 11 who are removed from their families in the name of peace. Still people attempt to justify this with the old 'break a few eggs to make an omelette' analogy but if this sort of disregard for human life is institutionalized and practiced indiscriminately by western governments then this grossly undermines any attempts to (quite rightly) condemn other countries on their own human rights abuses and ignores the concept of human dignity which underpins every western constitution from the Declaration of Independence to the UDHR itself.
Because how would you feel if you were tortured, innocent or not. There is so much more ways other than torturing a person. Like let the FBI agents find the criminal and lock them up in jail instead of taking matters into your own hands, because things could get way too far and you'll end up being put into jail for murder.
Upon reading both sides of the columns my mind has swayed side to side on this subject and if there was a neutral side for this subject I would post on that. But as stated there must be some criminals who would break down under heavy bluffs and lie but those who do not give in to them should be tortured not insane but a slap to the face or punch in the gut like military training just in case you were caught. I also see and recognize the fact that sometimes there is nothing to do. The more stubborn criminals who refuse to be tortured are made being loyal to their nation or gang. But do you remember that golden rule the one we've had in are heads from kindergarten "treat others how you would want to be treated" that rule applies. What if you catch a pirate torture him till you get your information then as you try to stop the pirates you get caught and the group of pirates catch you then releases their comrade then their comrade would come over for torturing do you think he'll hold anything back after you tortured him no, no he won't. To those who have seen saving private Ryan the same opposite thing happens when the translator guy saves the German solider from death then later in battle the German solider spares the translator from death. With this being said I have no clear cut idea at which I think is best.
To use torture to gain peace? The biggest oxymoron going. If torture is ever to be justified, can you imagine how this would so easily be misused and would be publicly known across the world. It may be the case it is privately known across the globe but to justify torture, to me, is a crime against humanity in itself.
Just because you are torturing someone doesn't mean they are going to give you legitimate facts. They may just want the pain to end so they will say anything. They will lie and sign your confession statement, just so they won't be hurt anymore. If you were innocent and being tortured, can you really say you would not say anything to save yourself as you are being strung up by your wrists tied behind your back.
Torture is never justified because you always have to be the bigger person in every situation and if you are mature enough you always know that its always a bad thing to torture people. Torture is an act of immaturity and should never be practiced. No one should ever have to go through torture no matter how big a crime they have committed.
Torture is not acceptable because we are all humans and it is inhumane. It may be childish but I will quote "Treat others how you want to be treated." Would you want to be tortured? Even when it may be seem "necessary", like if you have the leader of a terrorist group who has planted a bomb and he knows where it is, but won't tell you, and it might kill hundreds of people. Is it still justified? I think not.
Many of these arguments relating to idea that someone has been caught and we have a finite amount of time to find a bomb are using a hypothetical situation that is inherently weak. The fact is, they are going against the premise that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that if they gave free reign for governments to torture people on the premise they are a suspect and they have some information, then they are letting governments do this to any person or group they deem against what they (they government) stand for. Therefore, they would allow the government to torture them to find out why they are against the government torturing people/why the are for the government torturing people.
It is hard to believe. The former vice president of this great nation is admitting that he gave leadership to acts which are immoral under God and unlawful under our criminal code and Constitution, and he proudly declares he would do it again.
In an NBC interview that aired this week during the release of his book, "In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir," former Vice President Richard Cheney asserts that he has "no regrets" about supporting the euphemistically named "enhanced interrogation" techniques, and in retrospect, he would authorize waterboarding again, even though it's widely considered a violation of U.S. Law. "I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk," Cheney told NBC's Jamie Gangel.
Torture merely feeds the fire of terrorism, and restricts the freedom we all deserve.
When people are tortured, the information supplied is often falsified; the person undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal of supplying accurate information. Their main goal is simply to stop the torture.
Along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where.
Ill use him as an example of the consequences of torture: al-libi was captured in 2002 and tortured into a false confession that bu$hco used to start the iraq war; which has killed more than 4000 americans and at least 1 million iraqis; and drove the US $2.1 trillion deeper into debt. And furthermore, why bother to develop alternative technologies when all you have to do to get oil is torture some twit and use what he/she said to steal it??
Torture can serve only two purposes: to produce false confessions to back up a perverse political agenda (above); and/or as an end to itself. And neither serves the interests of US national security. "ticking bomb" scenarios dont happen in real life, full stop.
The Romans used torture, and our world has evolved so much around technology that we should be ashamed to use these methods. Torture is also very inefficient and because our world has so much technology there should be other ways to extract information, or any other reason to torture someone.
Since torture can cause death and harasses the human in so many ways, it goes against human rights, and goes against the ideal of a utopia and/or peace. It is not moral and no one should be tortured since in most cases it does bring anything either, plus I feel that torture is just bad. Thank you!
Many parties that argue in the affirmation of torture claim that torture is the most effective interrogation technique and that it is especially justified in time sensitive situations. However, the facts are simply not in support of such claims. As Al-Qaeda expert and former FBI agent Ali Soufan says, “Time and time again, people with actual experience with interrogating terror suspects and actual experience and knowledge about the effectiveness of torture techniques have come out to explain that they are ineffective and that their use threatens national security more than it helps”. Moreover, the Army Field manual states, "Torture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Not only is torture ineffective at gathering reliable information, but it also increases the difficulty of gathering information from a source in the future”. It is evident that torture does not produce useful or productive results and in most cases works against the grain by encouraging victims to give out false information in an attempt to end the torture. Operating on false information puts friendly troops in danger as well as entire military operations. “Many survivors of torture report that the truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with
false information” (Harbury, 2005). Torture also puts friendly prisoners of war being contained by hostiles in danger. By torturing hostiles, a president is set that almost guarantees the torture of friendly POWs. From a strategic standpoint, torture is a bad idea. The larger issue that most in the negation of torture argue, is abuse of human rights. Torture is inhumane in that its goal is ultimate pain and discomfort. In the case of torture the argument of “ends justify means” is null in that the ends can be just as bad or worse than the means. In summation, interrogative torture is of no benefit to either party involved and any other type of torture in simply not rationally justifiable. If 100% accurate information, or even 90% accurate information is guaranteed out of interrogational torture, we are talking about a different case. But the fact are, torture remains unreliable, irresponsible, and overrated.
Torture isn't justified. Most people say torture is wrong. Especially the police. But what gives them the right to torture others as well. Tasers are a device intended to torture the victim. Police aren't happy about torture but do they realise they are committing it themselves? This is why, in my opinion, torture isn't justified.
1. However much people want to rely on torture to get them to “spill the beans” it isn’t a very effective or reliable method. It urges people to say what the interrogators want, not what is necessarily true. “The only thing torture guarantee’s you is pain” –Veteran FBI Interrogator. Joe Navarro
2. Torture is inhuman. You are putting the sanity, physical and mental well-being along with their lives right into the trash. If you think torture is okay how about this. Some of the tortures given to the detained would be bungee jumping, minor electrocution, semi-drowning, bagging their heads and then urinating on them, starvation, food poisoning, darkness, and making them face their worst fears, along with constant beatings. Many of this is currently not in use as far as the public knows, but many of these things were done to people who may have done something heinous, but in no way were they given a chance in front of a jury, a lawyer, and many of times there was no direct proof to them being connected.
To the person in the other column who said that "In the 21st century, torture has become much more humane"... I hope everyone realizes that this sentence does not make sense in any way... Torture is by definition NOT a humane practice... And considering the following part saying that we do not hang people upside down and hack them to pieces... Well, have you seen the Abu Graib photos? Because they will show you that people who exercise torture do still do that. And even if they don't, how is waterboarding or physical and psychological degradation any more humane than this? Psychological torture might be even worse than physical torture, I don't understand how you can say that torture is more humane, I think that just proves the stupidity of the argument for torture.
No matter what they may have done, they are still human beings. I believe that somehow they will get their punishment but it is not up to us to decide. We should also consider that several of the people tortured have been innocent of any crime and falsely accused. We should treat others the way we want to be treated.
I'm guessing most of you who said YES are either brainwashed Americans or have no idea what you are supportive of. TORTURE is a gruesome thing to do, no matter who the victim is. I am sure that there are many other ways of finding out the information you need, without losing your humanity. Torture is what people were using in ancient times, am I naive to believe that humanity has evolved since then? If you are supporting things like torture, you are definitely supporting the involution of your status as a human being.
How far have we come? People were tortured in the US hundreds of years ago. When the tortured become the torturers, who is right then? If you torture, you go down to the level of the torturer! An eye for an eye will make everyone blind. Then who will be left to see?
Would u like it if someone accused you of theft, or knowing some specific information and tortured you to tell them what is true? No right? Then why would humans go so low and torture their own brothers? Is there anything called logic left in us humans? I guess not.
The ticking bomb scenario, or the risk to family and friends, is often used as a justification for using torture. This reasoning is appealing, and has it's merits in a heroic morality. The problem is that the argument is flawed. First it is an extremely rare scenario, where you would know with enough certainty that this person knows where a bomb is. It might not be him - and certainly does not justify the many, many people being tortured in the world. And that is another thing - who is to say who can be tortured and who cannot? Who has the perfect morale and all the knowledge to play God (who I don't think condones torture in any shape or form,) and decide who gets to be tortured and who not. And if my neighbor does it, I can do it too. Only terrorists, some will say. Before or after they have been convicted in a court of law? What if they are not terrorists after all - or don't know where the bomb is? Oops, sorry we pulled your nails out, mate, our mistake. Research has shown that torture will get people to say anything - so how reliable is the information you get out of it? No, everything points to the same answer - torture is NEVER OK. And, by the way, this is no news. States have already agreed on this. Torture is forbidden by international and national law in most of the world.
If the United States is the country that we believe it is, then we shouldn't torture. Torture is not a good way of getting information from suspected criminals. When someone is being tortured they will say what they think the torturer wants to hear, not necessarily the truth. Many people that are pro-torture probably have not had it done to them, so what do they know? Just as long as it doesn't happen to people they either don't know or care about or are labeled terrorist, it is justified to them which to me is a shame. There is a reason why common criminals in the United States are not tortured. It's because it doesn't work. So why do we torture alleged terrorist who don't belong to this country? It's because we are low. We've lost our respectability and above all racist. We water boarded the Muslim jihadist apparently involved with 9/11, so why didn't we do the same to the OKC bombers? Those guys were killed. America has become barbaric with our torturing of foreign enemies.
Who gets to decide what act of crime is worthy of torture? When do you say that enough is enough, and who decides this? Everyone has a different set of morals and opinions. I think that there are methods of obtaining information that are more practical and more accurate. While being tortured, the victim will often confuse the information they have, and the answer their torturers are trying to extract.
Its wrong and it doesn't get anyone anywhere. It doesn't have any great evidence of what actually happened and it appeals a lot of false accusations. I think it does not do atone any good and it does not retrieve correct information about the situation or any parts of what actually happened
We should never have the legal right to harm another person, regardless of the reasons behind it. Torture is clearly "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by our constitution. I can't believe it's either up for contemplation whether torture is ethically justifiable. This is AMERICA, not a third world country! (Not that there's a huge difference anymore)...
But torture doesn't work. People will say whatever they think that you want them to say to make you stop. It's as simple as that. However if torture was actually a good way of extracting information from somebody, then depending on the severity of situation, probably if any lives were at risk, then torture might be justified.
More often then not, torture doesn't work. From a practical standpoint, the evidence gained through torture is often misleading or falsified. If I were holding a gun to your forehead and telling you to confess that you're a terrorist, you would probably do the same if the alternative were death.
In addition, it violates human rights and international law.
Torture is never the right method in receiving information or as a punishment method. Everyone has their own reasons for doing something no matter how evil, and doing basically the same evil to them is just as bad as what the criminal/suspect has done. A more efficient way to attack the problem is by finding the source of the problem and alternatives on how to help the person. I believe criminals are not truly evil, just very very sick. Also, nothing good comes out of torture except the satisfaction of the bystanders. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is changed, nothing is improved.
Torture, like war, is never justified. Torture induces a circle of events that leads from one torture to another. Torture induces the following feeling in the person being tortured: pain, fear and hate. Often a person who was once tortured, torture another person and so on. Someone else said that torture is necessary to obtain vital information, but I say that torture is in fact a way to constraint someone to say what you want to hear. And in the end I am going to tell you a Romanian joke about militiamen and people who worked in the dreadful Romanian Security the agents. It is said that some time ago (when Ceaușescu was leading the country) some militiamen and agents went for a hunt. The militiamen catches some wolves and the agents catches some rabbits. So the agents begun to beat the rabbits saying: "Admit you are wolves !".
Are we in the 13 century? We are smarter than that. We should be able to apply psychology on these individuals. Fear would be better, not physical pain. The difference between talking and "truth" is huge. Forced confessions are the result of torture. The interrogators need to know what they are doing, by torturing they are not guaranteeing any positive results.
The moment we allow for torture to be legalised, that will be the time when we will realise that we shouldnt have taken liberty, rights and freedom for granted. Democracy is built on the moral values of people. Torture has no value, it has no place in a democracy, torture can never be justified.
We must be the better ones, the people who will stand among others. We have been taught that even if "he started it", we shouldn't fight back. So it is the same for torture. Even people who might've in some ways tortured us does not deserve to be tortured by us.
When we think of torture, we commonly think of people from Al Qaeda or other terrorists. All too often it's easy to say, "Why not? They deserve it." Well, the truth is that there is no real, concrete way of knowing if the people being tortured are the actual people who have the sensitive information that the government is looking for. Torture is not justified. If an innocent person from a country associated with Al Qaeda or terrorism is tortured, do you think they're going to continue to think of the U.S. Or the country that tortured them in a benevolent way? No! Of course not. They're going to say, "Hey, I was innocent, the kind of person who they should have protected, and they tortured me. Why did they torture me?" They are going to conclude that it was because of their country of origin or their race, and they are going to think that the U.S. Or whatever country that had them tortured is bad. As a result, they may even decide that Al Qaeda has the right idea of it. We already have enough enemies - we don't need to make any more. Also, think about our morals and ideals. How can we profess to have a country where we believe "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." how can we profess this to be true, and then go and torture someone because we have an inkling of a suspicion or because we are just that desperate? We have to find some kind of answer soon, and gosh darn it, this here gentleman has the right skin tone and humble background to possibly be able to shed some light on our dilemma. These people being tortured are just that - people. They have homes and families and friends - people who love them. They have their good days and their bad ones. They have hopes and dreams for the future. They have fears and reservations about what's going to happen. They have children and they have bills to pay. They could be you. They aren't "those people." They aren't a plague or something that doesn't really exist. They are real, living, breathing, people, and they can feel pain just as much as you or I could. They could be you. So let me just ask you, would YOU ever want to be tortured - in any kind of situation? If you can't honestly answer "Yes" to that question, if your gut reaction is "NO!," then you have absolutely no place or right to decide that another human being should be tortured.
Torture is never justified, it is against our morals to torture one being against their consent, especially considering that the torture may not even work, nor may it be on the correct person. If it were on the wrong person as it has been on many occasions, families will be broken and most or all the sanity and security of that one person will be forever shattered, he will never be able to live in peace. That innocent man has experienced something nobody ever should, and this will effect the people around him : his wife, children, friends. Following his torture, his family would most likely want revenge on the police/government for committing a crime in itself, thus causing themselves to lead a life of crime to avenge their loss. As well as this, if the 'murderer' had killed many people or was going to kill more, should we break our morals to stop him? As the title of this piece states : Lives Come and Go , Morals Stay Forever. We don't know how many lives we live, what the meaning of our life is, or what happens to us after death, but we do know that a man who grows up in a society of justice, will most likely commit to that justice, and a man who grows up in a society where morals are changeable, will be less strict with such morals and will have a larger chance of following crime. We must keep our morals no matter what, so we don't confuse our children as well as ourselves, as to what is right or wrong.
Easy. Ask yourself if our system is corruption and/or error free. The Innocents Project is getting people wrongfully convicted freed after decades of false imprisonment.
Then, assume you are not guilty and you are being tortured. If you don't know anything and that's your answer and they keep on torturing you anyway I bet you'd come up with SOMETHING ANYTHING to get them to stop or maybe you'd implicate an innocent person to put a stop to pain mental & physical wouldn't you?
No one deserves to be tortured just to find out information. We all deserve to live, even the people who create problems for themselves. People who torture need to grow up and get a life because it's cruel and wrong and sick. Those people are going to regret it later on in life because karma will come around and get them. People shouldn't have to be tortured! TORTURE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.
There is no way of knowing what the subject being tortured actually knows. A lot of cases are also too extreme resulting in "accidental" death of the subject. If you are torturing a person for information, you have no way of actually knowing it will be reliable information. All you are ultimately doing is causing physical, mental, emotional, and psychological harm to the subject no matter how guilty.
People should not be harmed in any way to get information out of them. There are other options. After reading what happened in Syria, it made me sick to my stomach and no one should live like that, especially not children. I personally think it is sick, and serves no purpose whatsoever.
Torture is not justified. For those of you who argue that it may help save innocents, just how innocent are these people who are content with the torture of another human being to save their own miserable hide? If you give up your integrity for a little safety, you are little more than a common beast, an animal with no sense of humanity. Clearly, if you find torture acceptable, then there are not many other violent means that you would not find acceptable. In that case, I hardly classify you as innocent anymore.
Why would you hurt someone for info.....Gosh even bloody weapons should be illegalized. I know I wouldn't have my blood hurt just for some info on a certain thing. By the way torture can lead to false info because when you are in pain you want to end it. Why don't you give false info and keep your secret!
So if someone jumps off a building, will you do the same? If someone harms the country (as bad as this sounds), will we do the same? What good is this country's title if we can not live up to it? Known as the brave, the free, and JUST, will we descend because of the condescending? America, rise. Not America follow the footsteps of barbarians. Like the other said: torture at its best; hear what YOU want. Torture at its worst: hear nothing. Where is the truth and where is the justification?