Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA officer who ran the agency's torture program, now insists in his new book, Hard Measures, that torture led to the identification of an al Qaeda courier and the killing of Osama bin Laden. So i believe that in cases like this it is perfectly acceptable
It is needed, it is necessary, it maintains national security. Quite frankly, I do not care for the terrorists who want to destroy my country. If they do not want to give information (which they most certainly know, their not stupid, especially the bomb builders) we need to use more extreme means to do so. Now on the flip side of things, what would happen if an enemy combatant captured you and took you in for questioning (especially one with a Taliban/Al Quaeda affiliation) do you think they'll be nice to you? To which the answer is no, they'll be picking your toenails off before you even know what's going on
Its good when we do it, but when the enemy does it is unacceptable. If the Nazis tortured an American to get information about an impending allied attack on a German city. It would be considered another Nazi war crime, but when we do it its for the common good. If a enemy force invaded and over took the US, and an American resistance member was captured. Should they torture him to find out if he is planning a bombing on the new Government? The invaders are just trying to set up a peaceful government? The American resistance member is a treat to peace. We did it to resistance fighters in the Middle east.
That's like excusing the British and Danish empires and what they did to Ireland/England and Greenland, respectively. That's like approving the oppression the Lowlanders inflicted on the Highlanders in Scotland. No torture without death is worse than torture with death, because the victim has to live with it for the rest of their life
It is well accepted that information gained from torture is not extremely reliable. After all, a person who is being tortured would say anything to make it end. They would confess to crimes they did not commit and accuse other individuals who had nothing to do with the crime just to gain their own freedom. Beyond this problem, it is a savage and inhumane practice. There is a reason our constitution protects against "cruel and unusual punishment." Not to debate whether this extends to non-citizens, the point is that we are founded on the ideal that there are human rights which cannot be violated no matter what the reason may be.
If you were an American soldier who was caught by terrorists and they tortured you, it is not right. It is exactly the same if a terrorist was caught by Americans whom was tortured as it is a terrorist torturing Americans. People say that we can torture terrorists because they are in the wrong, but the terrorists think they are doing the right thing.
This should not be condoned in law. For one thing if you get the wrong guy or get someone guilty but who isn't in the know (and to "Tea Partier" it's not a matter of their intelligence it's a matter of who they allow to know what) then the person will make things up to stop the torture.
If it's a really dire scenario then maybe it would be best, but then it still should not be legally condoned. It should still be illegal to torture the suspect and the agents should be willing to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of the country and torture the suspect and then turn themselves in. If the threat is really that dire the president will likely pardon them and will have the support of the country. The law does not need to take into consideration ever tiny minute possibility. Torture should be illegal. If we're ever in a situation where it's dire enough that we have no other choice the law doesn't need to cover that for agents to know what to do.
First off, in order for them to have knowledge the person might be a threat, they would need information from another source. Obviously they already have been using secret phone taps and internet surveillance to get the information to make the person suspect. Obviously the way they received the information got them answers, why not just continue using it? If you take the person in, and he refuses to talk, using torture could make things worse. There are only a few reasons why the person might not answer the question.
1) He may not know the answer. Obviously "I don't know." would not be an acceptable answer because they feel he does, so they keep torturing him till he gives an answer he thinks you want. This would mean that he would give you the wrong information that may send you in the opposite direction. It might also lead you to question others who don't know the answer and the same process continues.
2) He knows the answer but other people may have worse in store for him or his family if he talks. Obviously, the only information they would give you would probably be false as well.
3) He knows the answer but it makes things worse for him because he is higher up than you think. Obviously he will not give you correct information because he knows that it would be even worse for him if he incriminates himself.
4) He knows the answer and give correct information during torture.
Unfortunately, you have a better chance at getting false information than true information. If you just kept phone or other surveillance on the person, you would eventually get even more true information without torture. After the entire mission is done, kill them. After all, they were a threat to the country and most likely deserve death.
Obviously I have no problem with the death penalty. I think it should be televised. Maybe even put their heads on display, like on a pike. Might make others who plan to harm us think twice.
The results is unreliable and the US is supposed to be setting an example for human rights. I don' t see how the US can claim we are a moral an just country when we use the skeeziest tactics and lie about everything we do just like any other third would regime. No honor among thieves I guess. And we seem to prove that daily.