Is torture OK if the info received stops another terrorist attack? (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

If you knew the info you could get from a terrorist would stop another attack on this country would it be ok?

 

[TurtleDude]

hard to say how you would know it but I would vote yes given how the left defines torture. I don't believe stretching someone on a rack or giving them electric shocks is the most reliable way to get information from a zealot though

 

[FallingPianos]

If his involvment in terrorism has already been proven, then I would vote "yes."

 

[Kandahar]

That circumstance wouldn't happen...Torture is a notoriously unreliable method of extracting information, and in the "ticking bomb" scenario there's no reason he couldn't just make something up (or have something made up ahead of time).

 

[FallingPianos]

That circumstance wouldn't happen...Torture is a notoriously unreliable method of extracting information, and in the "ticking bomb" scenario there's no reason he couldn't just make something up (or have something made up ahead of time).

I would think drugs would work better.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would think drugs would work better.

right you are

 

[Kandahar]

I would think drugs would work better.

You mean truth serums? Those don't really work very well outside of movies...My understanding is that they're mostly an urban legend.

 

[mpg]

Is there ever a situation where you KNOW that torturing someone will save lives? I don't think so.

 

[Kandahar]

Is there ever a situation where you KNOW that torturing someone will save lives? I don't think so.

I can't even think of a situation where it would be a good guess that torturing will save lives.

 

[FallingPianos]

You mean truth serums? Those don't really work very well outside of movies...My understanding is that they're mostly an urban legend.

something to that effect. I'm sure there is no drug that makes it impossible to lie, but i'd be surprised if no drug could be developed that would have some sorf of effect on that.

 

[FallingPianos]

Is there ever a situation where you KNOW that torturing someone will save lives? I don't think so.

of course the most effective method of extracting information should be used. but I believe the question is does a known terrorist have the right not to be tortured.

 

[talloulou]

Depends on what you mean by torture. I definitely don't think I could support an "anything goes" policy.

 

[FallingPianos]

Depends on what you mean by torture. I definitely don't think I could support an "anything goes" policy.

the way I view it, if the person is a confirmed terrorist, they've basically lost all rights except for the most basic ones. they cant be tortured for the sake of retribution, but if it is to get information then it is ok.

 

[talloulou]

the way I view it, if the person is a confirmed terrorist, they've basically lost all rights except for the most basic ones. they cant be tortured for the sake of retribution, but if it is to get information then it is ok.

Well there are certain types of torture I'd be down with and certain types I wouldn't. You really have to define torture. Can we kidnap a fellow's wife or kid and start breaking off their fingers on videotape in oder to force a fellow to speak. Some would call that torture. I wouldn't be okay with that. Even if the torture involves noone but the "terrorist" there is still some shite that is sooo sick that it shouldn't be done. I don't believe in stopping monsters by becoming one.

 

[FallingPianos]

Can we kidnap a fellow's wife or kid and start breaking off their fingers on videotape in oder to force a fellow to speak. Some would call that torture.

It is. Of the wife and child.

No one is suggesting that innocent people should be tortured. of course, if a video could be fabricated that showed the same thing, without violating anyone elses rights there would be no problem with it.

there is still some shite that is sooo sick that it shouldn't be done. I don't believe in stopping monsters by becoming one.

Its not like we would be indiscriminantly killing innocent people as they have done, there is no comparison. I dont see anything monsterous about torturing a known terrorist to extract information that could prevent further terrorism.

 

[Navy Pride]

Depends on what you mean by torture. I definitely don't think I could support an "anything goes" policy.

Even if it would save millions of lives?

 

[Kandahar]

Even if it would save millions of lives?

What scenario can you think of where torturing a potential terrorist will save millions of lives? If you're referring to the "ticking bomb" idea, a terrorist could easily invent a fake story ahead of time to delay his captors until it was too late.

 

[The Mark]

A very tough question.

My personal definition of torture probably allows stronger methods of interrogation than some others might be fine with......but perhaps not, as well.

I have to say "Yes".

Not that I like the idea of torture, nor do I think it is anywhere near an effective method of interrogation.

However, if interrogation experts find that some form of torture is the best way to get information out of a terrorist, then I would be inclined towards letting them do so.

I just don't think any well trained interrogator would need to resort to such crude methods.


In addition, I believe that currently the USA does not allow anyone held in some kind of confinement by its military, law enforcement, intelligence, etc., to be tortured.

I am fine with this, because I think that torture does not need to be used to get info from a prisoner.

There are better ways.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think what Navy is asking is this: if information received that stops a major terrorist attack was received via torture, would one condone that behavior in hindsight. Since hindsight is the only perfect science, my answer to that question is 'yes'.

However, without the hindsight factor, I don't think that this is an effective form of interrogation...especially with today's terrorists, Jihadists who don't care about their own lives in respect to their 'cause'. I don't believe torture would provide any more information than other forms of questioning.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Even if it would save millions of lives?

I'm sorry, I dont buy the hawk talk "Torture saves lives" tripe. Especially when the ones advocating torture also consider 1/2 the American population treasonous.

"Remember, this is for your protection!"

 

[Iriemon]

"Saves lives" -- i.e. the ends justifying the means, is the excuse for torture throghout history. If that is the standard, you can also justify an absolute police state. Living in a society were police can barge into your house at any time without a warrant, place video/spy devices in every house and car, snatch people away in the night and lock them away forever without charges, torture, coerse, threaten, intimidate, racially discriminate -- all these these if done might "save lives." And if you put the question in an unrealistic hypothesis: "If you do X millions will be saved," X can always be justified.

Whether an action or program might "saves lives" is not the only inquiry that should be made, IMO.

 

[Navy Pride]

What scenario can you think of where torturing a potential terrorist will save millions of lives? If you're referring to the "ticking bomb" idea, a terrorist could easily invent a fake story ahead of time to delay his captors until it was too late.

Well if we had the leader of the terrorists in custody on 9/10/01 and by using torture were able to get information out of him about the attack we would have been able to stop it..........

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm sorry, I dont buy the hawk talk "Torture saves lives" tripe. Especially when the ones advocating torture also consider 1/2 the American population treasonous.

"Remember, this is for your protection!"

Well I condone it if it saves millions of lives and prevents another attack and I don't consider anyone treasonous, maybe misinformed and very partisan though....

 

[MSgt]

People that pretend to maintain a higher morality than others and who remain fixed behind secure locations as the criticize the world around them, don't want or need to know the things that encourage and protect their life style.

These things include the use of double agents (payed terrorists within terrorist organizations), covert operations under the cover of night and out of the public's eye, and interrogation techniques that are occassionally pushed into what people would define as "torture."

It's an ugly world and it demands to be met with individuals that have the stomach to face it for those individuals that do not. The truth is that most people would prefer not to make the decisions that others have to and would rather find comfort in either ignorance or hypocritical criticisms.

 

[Kandahar]

Well if we had the leader of the terrorists in custody on 9/10/01 and by using torture were able to get information out of him about the attack we would have been able to stop it..........

And what makes you think he'd tell the interrogators anything? Or if he did, that he wouldn't just make something up? By the time they realized they'd been had, it'd be too late.