37 Total Votes

Yes. It helps us find out useful information.

20 votes

No. It's cruel and inhumane.

17 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
dietorangesoda says2014-07-09T22:25:53.1608159-05:00
I'm not sure how i feel about it
Sfaulkner says2014-07-09T23:24:26.6135577-05:00
People lie under torture. This is what we saw in the witchburnings, however, they would be tortured until they died and if they "confessed" they would be killed. I would say torture is a last resort and should only be used if completely necessary.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T00:36:04.2778000-05:00
Torturing anyone is sick and cruel. In addition to being unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment), its against several UN policies (UN policies are to be considered amendments to our own constitution). Americans should be sick at what we are doing to these UNTRIED prisoners (punishment before trial, another violation of the constitution). We justify this by calling them "terrorists". Again, we call them terrorists without any trial. How would you like to be tortured after the government just claims you are a terrorist. After all, no trial required.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T00:36:42.2198683-05:00
Bottom line. You have to do what will accomplish the most good. If one terrorist has information that could save hundreds, or thousands, of lives, the choice is clear.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T00:41:34.7209433-05:00
Dr_Obvious. Provide evidence for torture saving lives by preventing violence. Also, provide evidence that the individuals that are being tortured, are in fact, terrorists. After all, we have not tried many of the men that we have tortured.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T00:42:20.9440396-05:00
"UN policies are to be considered amendments to our own constitution" Excuse me? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Only WE can amend it. Not the UN.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T00:49:29.6489862-05:00
Dr_Obvious: If the United States signs a treaty promising it must abide by the rules, it may not violate those rules (or risk being ejected from the UN). In addition, your support of torture violates protection against cruel and unusual punishment (as well as UN and Geneva convention treaties, both of which we signed).
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T00:50:25.5749862-05:00
Although we would be in the UN if we violated every inch of its constitution
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T00:51:30.8453862-05:00
We never tortured any of those prisoners. We used waterboarding. Do you know what that is? It does not fall under the definition of torture. The prisoners were not harmed from this enhanced interrogation technique.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T00:52:51.7157862-05:00
Do you know what waterboarding is? It's dropping chemicals or methane on someones head, as they're held over a board. It's neither enhanced or humane.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T00:54:52.6744075-05:00
Dr_Obvious: Intense stress, both physical and mental, was forced upon detainees. The United States performed these acts without a trial. If you still don't believe that is torture, would you mind telling me why you feel it is necessary to resort to torture on men who have not been tried? By the way, stripping and forcing prisoners to stand for days on end, IS cruel and unusual punishment.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T00:57:12.7751656-05:00
I would like Dr. Obvious to explain how humane the torture was in Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib. Are you actually under the impression that "only" water boarding is going on there?
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T00:57:29.3824336-05:00
Wa·ter·board·ing ˈwôtərˌbôrdiNG/ noun noun: waterboarding; plural noun: waterboardings; noun: water-boarding; plural noun: water-boardings an interrogation technique simulating the experience of drowning, in which a person is strapped, face up, to a board that slopes downward at the head, while large quantities of water are poured over the face into the breathing passages. Get your facts straight.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T00:58:59.6460106-05:00
If only the US only used water. As I said, methane and chemicals are often used in the waterboarding process. Either way, there was everything from rape to forced castration reported at Abu Grahb alone.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:00:20.5745862-05:00
I can't comment on that. I do believe that, in some situations, torture should be used. If we knew that someone had information that could prevent a catastrophic loss of life, we are morally obligated to extract that information by any means necessary.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:02:15.8139210-05:00
"If only the US only used water. As I said, methane and chemicals are often used in the waterboarding process. Either way, there was everything from rape to forced castration reported at Abu Grahb alone." Oh, please. Spare me. Do you have any proof any of this happened? Was anyone convicted of said offenses? Show me some evidence.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:02:42.9953210-05:00
Uh, or not. Did you know, that 5 times as many people who died in 9/11 were accused of planning the attack? The US tortures 1000's more suspected terrorists than actual terrorists. Trials take a long time, to which their information is useless. Yet trials are also humane and necessary, or if we don't give them trials, then we're no better than the terrorists we're fighting.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:03:48.3986210-05:00
Please don't deny what happened at Abu Graib. Around 10,000 people were illegally tortured in the most inhumane ways possible in Iraq.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T01:04:01.5493810-05:00
Dr Obvious: Many of the men and women that we have "interrogated", have turned out to be false leads. How would you feel if I told the government you knew where a bomb was, and they "interrogated" you without a trial. Tribes often relay false information to US authorities for revenge in afghanistan and Iraq. We have trials for a reason. Sacrificing an innocent life's rights (until proven guilty) for the skim chance at information is morally wrong.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:07:04.8987893-05:00
Worst part about Abu Ghraib, is that these people went home with honorable discharges
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:08:01.3215734-05:00
I never said torture should be used based on a rumor. I said if we knew, or even had solid evidence that that a terrorist had information on a terrorist attack, then we should use it.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:08:35.2513810-05:00
Evidence is only "solid" when it has been tried among a jury of your peers
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T01:10:50.4409810-05:00
Dr_Obvious: I have three questions then. 1) How could we ever be positive a person knew the information. 2) When has US enhanced interrogation or torture ever saved a life. In other words, how do we know the information he tells us is reliable. 3) How would you justify this on a US citizen being accused of terrorism.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:11:05.4793810-05:00
Not when lives are at stake.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:41:39.9405417-05:00
@TheRationalist Let me ask YOU a question. Suppose your wife, or child, or another of your loved ones was kidnapped. You know who did it, and you have them in your custody. What wouldn't you do to save them?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:42:32.8800937-05:00
Spare us the charged rhetoric. Answer the mans questions.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:43:57.1356937-05:00
It's a valid question. What wouldn't you do to save the life of someone you love?
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T01:44:53.0673037-05:00
I would call the authorities and have them taken to be interrogated, not FORCEFULLY interrogated. With any luck and skill from the investigators, my family would be found. If I had the man tortured, there would be no guarantee that my family would be found, and I too would be incarcerated. Please answer my questions that I proposed to you above.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:44:53.6133002-05:00
No, it's charged rhetoric. Answer the mans questions. He asked first.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:47:25.2907311-05:00
I answered it with a question. Our government is charged with protecting American lives. Since it's my life they might be saving, I'll give them a pass if they have to break a few rules to do it.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T01:48:39.6211129-05:00
Don't answer his questions with another question.He asked first. If you want an answer to your charged rhetoric, answer his simple three questions.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T01:52:37.4446374-05:00
Dr_Obvious: The rules are designed in such a way as to not be broken. If the government could save the president's life by blowing up you in your house, they couldn't do it legally. Sticking to our laws is the only way to ensure that we dont fall down the path of torturing citizens for little information. I proposed three questions above, please answer them.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T01:54:46.8673135-05:00
Consider this. I forget the name of the ship, but during WWII it was heading into danger. We knew about it, but didn't warn them. The ship encountered the enemy and was destroyed. We didn't warn them because it might tip off the Germans that we had broken the Enigma code. Sometimes, you have to break a few eggs for the greater good. I'm not saying we should use torture as a common practice. I'm just saying that, in certain situations, it could be justified.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T01:56:55.4536117-05:00
Dr_Obvious: Again, you have avoided answering the rather specific questions I have asked. Military decisions made by military personnel (who have agreed to respect those decisions via contract or draft), are unrelated. 1) How could we ever be positive a person knew the information. 2) When has US enhanced interrogation or torture ever saved a life. In other words, how do we know the information he tells us is reliable. 3) How would you justify this on a US citizen being accused of terrorism.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T02:06:06.8200117-05:00
Hell, I'll just say it. I'm pro terrorist
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T02:10:36.2026567-05:00
1) How could we ever be positive a person knew the information. We can't. But if we waited to be certain, then lives could be lost. 2) When has US enhanced interrogation or torture ever saved a life. In other words, how do we know the information he tells us is reliable. Michael Hayden, Bush's last CIA director, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote, "As late as 2006, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those interrogations." Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." I see no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of Dennis Blair, Obama's own national intelligence director, who said in an April 16 memo to his staff that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding" of Al Qaeda. Blair later qualified this by adding, "There is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." But a reasonable person might imagine that it would take more than sweet talk, mind games, and lollipops to get hardened terrorists to sing. 3) How would you justify this on a US citizen being accused of terrorism. Well. As Wolfie said to me earlier, that's a bunch of charged rhetoric. Americans are protected by the Constitution. The ones we interrogated were prisoners of war. And as I stated earlier, we got some very valuable intel using these methods.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T02:12:48.9411471-05:00
"Hell, I'll just say it. I'm pro terrorist" I've notified the office of Homeland Security. You'll be getting a visit pretty soon.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-10T02:19:00.2412327-05:00
I'm a member of the Taliban, who aren't terrorists, so....... Http://shahamat-english.Com
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-10T04:00:02.3014184-05:00
Dr Obvious, Im glad you ascribe to a utilitarian approach to choices in some areas where appropriate, especially in your WWII example, but I am not sure that we can apply this concept in a blanket format, or at least to such a general descriptor as 'terrorist', especially when we have ...People... Like ChosenWolf making statements like this, or however cavalier people, news, and the government have been conditioned to label anyone against the US gov't as 'terrorist'. In the very definition of the word, the US has acted, since it's inception, as a terrorist imperialistic nation. Mainly, I am worried that the public's consent to allow these 'methods' to be applied is extremely dangerous with the governments extreme ambiguity, secrecy, and hypocrisy of defining/labeling who & what is a terrorist, especially as they are now using media to sway public perception of civilian militias or anti-government movements as 'terrorist' cells. Do you not agree?
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-10T05:03:21.7302591-05:00
I can agree on that. They are also portraying Christians as terrorists, people who believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, people who believe in limited government. In short, anyone who disagrees with Uncle Sam is a terrorist. I see dark days ahead for this country.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T09:42:46.4241709-05:00
How can anyone who believes in dark days for this country willingly allow people to be punished under the assumption that they are a terrorist. If it becomes common, your particular group may find itself labeled terrorists.
Formerland1 says2014-07-10T11:35:18.0580983-05:00
I agree with dr. Obvious
Rightwing15 says2014-07-10T13:34:17.0509837-05:00
Our country isn't a democracy anymore its really sad that its disintegrated that fast
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T13:37:59.7721837-05:00
Right_wing15. Your comment is off topic. You mentioned you believe torture to be one of the most effectual ways of obtaining information from people. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-10T13:41:17.5333837-05:00
TheRationalist, that is exactly the point I am attempting to make and share. The term 'terrorist' has been too casually used and applied by government, media, and people alike,, so when we hear that a 'terrorist' has been captured and is being 'interrogated', how do we know the true nature of this 'terrorist' and furthermore, how can/should be condone the torture of such?! It should NOT be at the digression of the US to choose who/who not to torture, since we haven't gotten it right for decades.
Rightwing15 says2014-07-10T13:42:59.7560239-05:00
Its worked before but i agree with your statements, were dropping words like terrorist too easily. Anyone who is anti government policy is labeled a suspect of domestic terrorism. It really sucks.
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T13:44:26.3360239-05:00
My question to you was whether torture was effective. When has torture been an effective method of gathering information for the United States?
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-10T13:54:37.1141016-05:00
To side comment on TheRationalist question, I am not sure I have heard anything reliably against or for the effectiveness of torture to produce viable intel, and I am not sure if it is practical either, however I don't completely deny that it has been/is possible. However, this is one of those topics where we have to rely on validating it's effectiveness either the higher officials that consent and control such methods, or the leaked/declassified stories of those whom performed them, as so far I have only heard of how they ARE effective from the Cheney-types in power, and it ineffectiveness from others. Perhaps others have non-partial, unbiased, reliable testimony?
TheRationalist says2014-07-10T14:17:03.3621267-05:00
Clergy in the middle ages used to note that after a long time torturing individuals, they would either die, or falsely confess. Later, nazi Gestapo would go on to claim that torturing was effective. However, it was revealed that their torturing was largely ineffective. Instead, public informants and investigators were far more reliable. Even russian KGB agents referred to torture as ineffective. Torturing does not make a person crack, but instead encourages the person to say whatever will stop the punishment, regardless of its validity. We have this perception that everyone has their limit, but that is simply not the case. People can and have died or broken down as a result of torture. Cheney and his types claim "enhanced interrogation" is effective, but will not disclose specific instances where this was the case.
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-10T21:35:38.5520846-05:00
I am on the side of TheRationalist, and believe, without concrete evidence but only on what history has told us, that torture appears to be mainly ineffective, aside from being inhumane. Until the government is able to produce specific (and more importantly, credible) examples of how torture has or is working to be of beneficence, I, and we, can only conclude through what we have heard that it has been and can only be counter productive.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.