Why wouldn't we? The only issue I can see is it can lead to misinformation. But other than that, that is the only issue I see. I do not care or even see their rights as an issue, nor the part about it being humane or ethically wrong. I just see such people as terrorist, and they should be treated as such. Besides, if the CIA were to stop torturing said people, I can guarantee you right now that the CIA would send them to Saundra Arabia to be tortured, or to some other careless country.
FreedomJosh, Amen. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques helped us stop future attacks and spare lives of many Americans who would be dead were it not for the "so called torture." Having a hankie put over your mouth and being water poured on you is nothing more than a technique to gather Intel to spare lives. But, that's just too harsh right? Harsher than hijacking commercial aircraft and slamming them into buildings which caused horror I will never forget. People JUMPING to their death's from the WTC. Jumping or Burning alive? That IS TORTURE. Two choices on how to die. Jump 80+stories or burn alive? They didn't get the compassion and ethical treatment these Terrorist got. We don't behead the evil barbarians, they behead US! Those of you who are so far removed from the events of 9/11 need to REMEMBER. Attacks on Americans are what these Terrorist live for. They are patient, they are focused and they will attack again. So I ask you, should we gather Intel to prevent attacks or sit back and sympathize with those who seek to murder as many of us as they can?
I believe that everything has a cause and effect. If somebody threatens or hurts somebody then they deserve to be hurt as well. They chose to hurt people, they chose to behead people. When you have that kind of life you have to accept the consequences.
At the same time you have to consider, would they torture us?
Remember 9/11, the Boston Bombing, it's things like those that make painful thing done to them justified, the CIA should keep doing what they're doing.
Call me a barbarian, a brute, a monster, I have no sympathy for them. What would you do to them, say sorry and send them on there marry little way, I wouldn't I'd put the fear of god (and I wouldn't even give them the honor of it being theirs) into them.
If it costs the life of one terrorist to save the lives of several Americans, good! Terrorists are inhumane, the way we treat them is far better than the way that they behead people, just for the fun of it. We torture for the saving of American lives, the terrorists torture just to watch people suffer, we are a far cry from inhumane.
Call torture what you will- immoral, cruel and brutish, and you'd be 100% correct. But when a person decides to throw away their humanity and commit their lives to spreading terror and degrading and removing the freedom and lives of others, they deserve every ounce of pain they receive as long as it helps to upheave whatever inhumane cause they're a part of. For those kinds of sick people, I have no sympathy- however for those who torture I have none either. They're both gross acts that remove freedom and the human rights of people who only want to live in a certain world- although I can't change my level of sympathy on how logical it is, and thus I am going to go with yes for this one.
How else are we supposed to get information out of them, promise them a giant stuffed teddy bear if they help??? Come on. They are loyal to their country the only thing people like them will respect is pain and I say, heck, lets give it to them. They would do the exact same thing if they where us
What would you rather have - the lives of twenty Americans, or the life of a terrorist? Torturing helps get useful information, and it's not like these people we're torturing are perfect. If used the right way torturing can give more information than just kindness alone. Society just needs to man up and deal with it.
When the state can torture terrorists that the public is unsympathetic to, then they can torture regular suspects caught on heresy evidence. What if someone innocent is tortured, or someone later found innocent after being convicted? The whole idea of a trial is to find their guilt. If the accused are found to have perpetrated terrorist attacks, then they should get the death penalty. The Geneva Conventions allows no exceptions to this.
Torture is a form of coercion that uses raw fear to serve the purpose of those who do the torturing. It's not something that America should involve itself in and that was settled long ago. And there's cruel and unusual punishment protection. The "say sorry and put them on there merry little way" projection isn't going to have many adherents. We have a death penalty that they can be given after having true justice in a honest, fair trial. If their guilt is true enough to constitute that they have committed these acts, it should easily muster them into a trial and the needle.
All this running around trying non-traditional methods has not lead to more than a few convictions. If we stopped playing games, then we would just use our acclaimed justice system like usual, and the guilty might have been executed by now. Use the right prosecutor in a normal trial and the worst of the worst will see their rightful demise, as have Nazis and others in our history.
Torture is not only an ineffective method of interrogation, it's immoral and cruel. We're supposed to be the "good guys" in this conflict, and torturing them makes us just as bad as them. That will turn this conflict into a war between two evils, not "good vs. Bad" like we want it to be.
Two wrongs do not make a right. We should not be torturing human beings. How can we call ourselves civilized and do this? How can this sort of thing still be allowed in the 21st century? It really opens my eyes to see how many people support TORTURE in this day and age and I see just how "civilized" modern people are.
One of the biggest points of controversy surrounding what we now know about what the CIA did is that we don't know that they actually were terrorists. It has come to light (New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/us/politics/amid-details-on-torture-data-on-26-held-in-error-.html?_r=0) that we can be absolutely certain that at least 26 (22%) were held in error, i.e. they were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. This included one man who was mentally ill. Yet many were tortured anyway, and almost all were detained for many months at a time without any recourse to a lawyer or trial by jury, often in terrible conditions.
So not only is the question fundamentally flawed from the start, but even if we move on from the 20% who we now know weren't properly detained in the first place, it still is not justifiable to torture them, for a number of reasons.
First is that it violate their human rights and breaks the Geneva Convention. The right to not be tortured is non-negotiable. There is no circumstance in which it is legally or ethically acceptable. No human rights court in the world (such as The Hague) would accept self-defence or national security as an excuse. The Geneva Convention, which you should be somewhat familiar with, totally outlaws all forms of torture under any circumstances as well. So what the CIA did was clearly totally illegal, violating international law and human rights, as well as (probably) US law.
Another important point is that it also does not provide us with useful information. Part of what we learned from the Senate committee's report on the CIA's torturing of detainees is that the Unites States government did not even gain any useful information from it, and what information they did gain could have just as easily been gained through more legitimate means. Part of the problem with torture is it gives you unreliable information as well, and that was another part of what came out with the report: that much of the 'information' they gained through torture was incorrect and led to flawed and pointless military/anti-terrorist actions. When people are being tortured they will say anything to make it stop, which is why you will hardly find any court in any country in the world which will accept evidence obtained under torture.
Lastly, it debases the moral currency of the United States. This has probably irreparably tarnished the international reputation and standing of the country. The US has lost the moral high-ground from which they might have once been able to criticise violent, oppressive regimes. Where once the US might have been able to criticise North Korea for torture, now North Korea can look the US in the eye and ask "Was it really any worse than what you did?" Both would argue it was for their national security, 'doing what had to be done.'
Torture has been proven to be an ineffective method of interrogation, and at any rate, torture is completely immoral. Regardless of what a person does, they are not deserving of such a terrible fate. Though terrorists aren't good people, that doesn't mean we have the right to treat them as anything less than the humans they are. Allowing our military to torture prisoners could potentially start a slippery slope and turns everything into a contest of two evils.
Many studies have been done on this. Yes you MIGHT get information every once in a blue moon, but you are more likely than not to continuously receive false information. Additionally studies have shown that in torture situations the victim will usually just say what the captor wants to hear regardless of whether it is true or not. Hasn't anyone here ever heard an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How are we any better than the terrorists if we bomb their innocent civilians and torture them? In the end it's really just not worth it in my opinion. And if you have the willpower and gall to be someone who is a torturer, I feel for you soul. Must take a sick individual to be capable of handing out such punishment.
Torture has been proved and confirmed by the CIA itself as ineffective in gathering information. The torturer may beat the captive to confirm what he suspects but that doesn't make what the captive said true. He might be saying to stop the attacks. Human memory also is proved to be ineffective in remembering small details after long periods of time. The prisoner probably had forgotten the certain detail the interrogator wants to know. If torture is ineffective, then why bother? It's a waste of time and resources.
I desire for there to be no torture anywhere in the world. Not because it only provides misinformation, not because one in four victims in Guantanamo are totally innocent, not because I care about any of these people or their families. Or rather all of that on top of the much larger fact that I'm selfish, as an American citizen, I don't want to lower myself to the level of the real terrorists, and by torturing, that's exactly what we, as a nation are doing.
Aside from the fact that torture is just wrong and that people make mistakes and so torture will lead to torturing innocent people, the fact is that torture does NOT work.
If the person is innocent they will make things up. If the person is guilty but had a small role to play they don't know anything and they'll make things up.
If the person had a truly big role to play torture will just make that person feel like a martyr who is enduring pain for Allah and they will become even more determined not to tell you anything useful.
A better strategy would be to let their guard down. Have them dress in fancy clothes and sit them down to dinner. It worked in WW2. A german general accidentally told the British what they wanted to know under those circumstances.
Although I don't know what international law says about it the use of certain drugs to make the person more likely to tell the truth would be OK with me as long as there is not an undue risk to the person's health.