The United States, as was the rest of the world, was shocked and horrified on the month of September in 2001. I don't even have to say the exact date or what's happened. You already know. It has been seared into our memories due to the brutal what's happened. You already know. It has been seared into our memories due to the brutality and damage that one terrorist group was able to impose on our beloved country. By that night we knew that we would have to change our counter-terrorism measures. Ever since 9/11 all the way to early 2009 there hasn't been a SINGLE terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This was the exact same time period that the controversial enhanced interrogation methods were used by the CIA. Did the terrorists who chant "death to America" suddenly have a change of heart and decide not to go through with their attacks? The ones who felt America was the "land of Devils" felt like there was no need to attack America? Well think again. In the time period of the Enhanced Interrogation Program (EIP), the United States never suffered another 9/11 type attack. That shows that the EIP was successful. If we didn't have this program, do you honestly think that we still wouldn't have had a single terrorist attack? No we would have had many more Americans dead. This program is necessary to keep us safe. One terrorist attack (9/11) did so much damage and harm to us, imagine if we let more attacks happen because we couldn't even use different methods to interrogate the terrorists. There are people who say "what if they torture an innocent?" That's very very unlikely considering the tools the NSA has and intelligence sharing with other nations. You aren't gonna get the wrong guy. Even the CIA is smart enough to know when they are wrong and will stop before the interrogation starts. These guys are smart and they usually have information to show that the suspect is involved with terrorist activities. And for those who say it's morally unacceptable, is it better for the terrorists to succeed? What about the ticking time bomb scenario? It's happened before. These terrorists are careful to hide their plans so there basically no other way to find out (the NSA could try digging into where the bomb might be while the CIA interrogates him) where the attack will take place. Who's lives matter more, the well being of the terrorist or the lives of potentially thousands or millions of Americans who are innocent? Enhanced Interrogation was successful and should never have ceased.
Yes, torture is justified sometimes, depending on the situation. If a person has hurt a large number of people, proper retribution is to torture them. There is no reason that a person who has tortured one person or countless people should not suffer a little bit themselves. Torture is fair payback to a person who has inflicted pain on others.
There is almost no situation in which torture is justified - almost. In the event of an incredibly dangerous attack or situation, in which the perpetrator is definitively known and has admitted as such, then torture is justified. Still, setting criteria is almost impossible, because it can only be known on a case-by-case basis.
Whether this is a realistic situation or not is irrelevant. The question reads "is torture EVER justified" meaning can we possibly imagine a scenario in which it is justified. The answer is yes. If we could prove that torturing somebody would save lives, it would be justified. Yes, I agree, proving that torturing someone would save lives is close to impossible. But in a few rare cases, it may be possible to prove that a certain individual has information and would spill this live saving information through torture.
Tell me, when has using torture ever been justified? The only use is for retribution, which fixes nothing. Tell me, how many people have benefited from torture? NONE. It does not bring back people from the dead, it does not heal permanent wounds, it does not get back stolen property. Sure, it may feel good to get even. But we have to be better than the people we torture. How are we better than the guys we torture?
Bcoz if the person has not done something wrong but still it is tortured then the person would never be justified... In other words how would you feel when someone torture you for a silly and a stupid mistake... I don't think that it would be right to torture a person or a criminal
No, torture is never justified. To torture an individual is to reduce that individual to being less than human. It is also to inflict on that individual undeniable pain and suffering. That pain and suffering cannot be excused, no matter the circumstances. To torture an individual is to become as bad or worse as the crimes that individual may have committed.
No one should ever be tortured. Jesus Christ was tortured--was that worth it? Torture is a Dark Ages approach to getting intel out of suspects. With today's contemporary electronic surveillance, torture seems to be an antiquated way to gather information. Beside, torture victims can lie just to get out of being tortured in the first place. Would you want to be tortured?
There is no event where torture is justified because you are deliberately causing pain to another individual. If there is a death penalty law and the person has gotten a fair trial they should be peacefully put to death. Torturing the person is simply barbaric and immoral and should not be justified.
Torture is never justified. There is other means of extracting information from people that does not require hurting them and giving them scars, both mental and physical. In the long run ruining a persons mental state is doing more damage than good, and that person no longer is reliable for information anyways.
The United States has a long tradition of advancing Human Rights and has promoted and authored much of the language in the anti-torture body of law. (The Convention Against Torture (CAT) was a Reagan Administration triumph.)
The current laws on the books are explicit in the prohibition against torture. The legal sophistry by the Executive Branch of the Bush Administration to justify torture was repudiated in several Supreme Court decisions and in subsequent legislation.
The United States is a nation of laws. If the laws were meant to be applied in only certain situations and to only certain people at their whim, we are nothing more than a sham.
Imagine this, you getting beat up for your confession or information about a crime you do not know and unaware of, but the torturer does not believe you and continues beating you up. How will you feel? Well obviously you want to get out of the pain you are suffering but there's nothing you can do but to confess to a crime you did not do in the first place.
You can just ask a graphologist to help you or find clues, evidence, witnesses that you think might be able to help you to find the truth. There's no need for torture. It's cruel and inhumane. So with this, I disagree that torture is ever justified.
In my opinion, people fight and strive harder for a cause when they know for certain it is a just one. When a people begin using torture against their enemies they weaken their own cause by undermining their own moral authority/superiority. When evil deeds cause good men to commit cruel acts, does evil prevail? I think it was Nietzsche who said: "You should be careful when fighting monsters that you do not become one yourself", if that happens the monsters win.
There is never a justification for torture. It's a barbaric act that has roots in the past, in less enlightened years of human history. The use of torture means that we have failed as people, and possibly that we have failed as a nation as well. We are better than torture.