I don't support torture being one of the first methods of information extraction we go to, but at the end of the day, if you have somebody that YOU KNOW has information that can save a great number of people from harm, you get it out of them. If they want to do it the unpleasant way, well....
The extraction of information against some ones will by chemical means.
If there was a bomb planted in a city, sodium pentathol or whatever is used these days would I suspect appear quite reasonable to me if it saved the lives of my loved ones.
Giving anesthetic to induce a carefree state is invasive and a psychological torture once the state wears off but I think it's use could be tolerated by most if the outcome prevented an attack.
Similarly if you where told by someone they had a family member held captive you would likely make them tell you where? It would get nasty quite quickly if you felt they had malign intent I suspect.
As soon as someone demonstrates intent, the capacity to neutralise the threat is employed until the threat has been reduced to a level that we feel safe again, the other option is we live in fear of what they will do next. We generally do not see that as an acceptable option neither now or historically.
How are you better than those you think deserve torture?
Would you want to be tortured? Would you want that done to a family member?
There is no evidence that torture saves lives or gets needed information.
Also torture is an act of a coward. You are deliberately inflicting harm upon someone who can't fight back.
I believe the general consensus for torture is to avoid it. I think this falls to the golden rule of treating people how you would want to be treated. Torture is cruel and inhumane and no one wants to be tortured. I believe the answer is clear on this one and I wouldn't be surprised if most agree.
We should not torture people. Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them. We should not allow this to happen to anybody.
I would never just torture someone, if that is the question. Honestly, though, I don't think torture should be used as a widespread means of finding out information or getting to the bottom of things. As an American it sends the wrong message and can lead to many other countries following our lead.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Would you want to be tortured? No. Inflicting pain in the form of torture on any human being is just plain wrong. Instead of focusing on torture of prisoners, why not talk about the torture women and children endure at the hands of abusive men on a daily basis? Millions of Americans live in fear for their lives every day because men are too drunk, stoned, methed up or just plain mean. Let's end domestic torture, uh, domestic violence, first before we worry about torturing Islamists in the war on terror.
We should never torture people even as a form of punishment. I think that it is undeserved. Torture as a form of getting answers out of people does not work for the most part. I think we should just execution people if it comes down to it rather than subjecting them to torture.
Falsehood #1:Torture provides us with reliable information.
When you coerce someone to give you information, anything they tell you is immediately unreliable. If someone is being tortured, no matter how heinous the method, they will say anything to stop their pain.
Falsehood #2 These terrorists deserve it
The people being tortured at Gitmo are only accused terrorists, not convicted. To assume their guilt goes against one of the basic principals of our legal system, presumption of innocence. Technically, they are completely innocent.
Falsehood #3: "Enhanced Interrogation" protects our freedoms.
This is probably the most vague political language I have seen, yet I have seen it in conjunction with the pro-torture argument often. I'm still not exactly sure how torturing human beings protects our own freedoms; in fact, I would say that it violates our Constitution and actually limits our freedom. If the government is willing to exercise "enhanced interrogation" on non-U.S. Citizens, do you think they will turn the other cheek for U.S. Citizens? I don't think so, even though our Constitution prohibits the use of "cruel and unusual punishment" (of course, that applies to people who have actually been convicted of a crime, not the accused who should receive absolutely no punishment.)
Falsehood #4: it doesn't make the U.S. Look bad.
Of course it does! What hypocrisy we exercise by promoting the "rights of the accused" and yet waterboarding suspects. Now I know that some will argue that those rights only belong to U.S. Citizens, but I was under the impression that Americans believed that their system of government was the best achievable and everyone should live under the same circumstances. I mean, we've fought wars trying to apply our ideology all over the world. And yet, we have an opportunity to exercise our Constitutional concepts on others, we choose not to for the sake of false justice. How can we consider ourselves civilized when we are willing to do these sorts of things to innocent men?