Torture

[Gandhi>Bush]

Do you think it is okay to torture prisoners for the sake of gathering information to save lives, to gain strategical advantag, or anything at all? Please do not make this a thread about if the US has or has not tortured any one. I just want to have a discussion about your moral position on the matter.

 

[SixStringHero]

No.

John McCain who was POW claimed that under extreme duress and torture anyone can break and one would be willing to make up anything just to keep from being tortured anymore.

Of course we still have to put torture into context, and I believe anything that causes pain or fear of death should be considered torture.

 

[FinnMacCool]

No.

Why?

Because if we torture prisoners, the moral line between what we do and what our enemies do disappears. Once that happens, more people will start to question our own government and our own country. People will have to question their own beliefs and nobody wants to do that.

 

[jallman]

Oh dear, I do believe I am about to be the bad guy again. Here goes anyway...

The discretionary use of torture under strict adherence to specific guidlelines is perfectly acceptable practice. Torture used in circumstances where strategic information can be gained and for verification purposes of already suspected intelligence, seems perfectly logical to me. Torture should be conducted by a team of highly trained interrogators, always with medical personnel on hand. It should be reserved, not for the average soldier, but for high ranking POW's who would be privy to necessary information. Torture of the average infantryman is pointless and simply cruel. However, captured strategists, politicians, and espionage agents may have vital information in a time of war. It should only come along with the territory that they would be subject to forceful interrogation which would utilize physical or mental torture.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Jailman that explanation might MIGHT be perfectly acceptable depending on what exactly are the torture methhods which are used? I have no problem with a forceful interrogation but I think that torture goes way too far.

 

[The Mark]

No.

But it all depends on what you personaly define torture as.

For example, if someone was being yelled at and/or shaken to try and get him/her/it to give information (like you see on police/detective shows on TV).......that could be considered some form of mental torture by someone.

I would say almost anything short of causing the interrogation subject external/internal damage or causing him/her/it large amounts of pain (but no damage), would be torture.

Also, I would like to add mental damage, but there you get into a gray area, because some good lawyer could say you caused him/her/it mental damage by yelling at him/her/it.

There is no simple answer.

 

[Resident_Bitch]

Yes, why not. Have you not seen what happens to our (US) troops that have been captured? 99.9% of the nut bags out there don't care about "Morals or political rules" set by NATO or whom ever else. Usually when we are talking prisoners and torture its a time of WAR. There are no rules of war. What needs to be done should be done and if that includes a little pain then so be it.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Exactly my point Resident_Bitch (interesting name I might add). When it comes to morality, the line between who is right and who is wrong and who is more civilized and who is less starts to blur when we start using the same tactics of our enemies to achieve our goals.

When you start to do that, the reason for why were fighting starts to blur also and that is bad for morale

 

[purplehaze]

The discretionary use of torture under strict adherence to specific guidelines is perfectly acceptable practice. Torture used in circumstances where strategic information can be gained and for verification purposes of already suspected intelligence, seems perfectly logical to me. Torture should be conducted by a team of highly trained interrogators, always with medical personnel on hand.

The whole point is that you are torturing someone because you do not know what they know. How can you possibly know if someone you are torturing knows anything important. You have to guess and this means you will undoubtedly torture people that know nothing.

It should be reserved, not for the average soldier, but for high ranking POW's who would be privy to necessary information.

So you think anyone with a bar on their shoulder that gets captured during a war should be subjected to torture based on the slight possibility they may know something? Sending the message to our enemies that we condone torture, even in extreme cases, is bad. You may argue that the enemy we are currently fighting will torture Americans either way. But this policy could hurt us in the future if we become involved in a larger conflict.

 

[TurkSol]

of course not , they are human as well , as thou they made crimes etc ..if we torture them ..they will start a hatrens against the people outside ..and when they are out..they will be worse for the society

 

[scottyz]

IIRC the CIA has concluded that torture is an ineffective way of gathering good information. The victim will tell you whatever he/she thinks will make the pain stop.

 

[jallman]

Jailman that explanation might MIGHT be perfectly acceptable depending on what exactly are the torture methhods which are used? I have no problem with a forceful interrogation but I think that torture goes way too far.

I would say that use of truth serums and other drugs to make the subject more pliable would be acceptable. Causing discomfort in relation to living quarters, denial of privacy, isolation, sleep deprivation, short term starvation, non scarring or permanently debilitating physical pain, any form of mental torture...all of these would be acceptable. These are the risks in time of war for high ranking officers. I just dont see anything illogical or wrong about the use of some subdued forms of torture when they are performed by trained staff.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I would say that use of truth serums and other drugs to make the subject more pliable would be acceptable. Causing discomfort in relation to living quarters, denial of privacy, isolation, sleep deprivation, short term starvation, non scarring or permanently debilitating physical pain, any form of mental torture...all of these would be acceptable. These are the risks in time of war for high ranking officers. I just dont see anything illogical or wrong about the use of some subdued forms of torture when they are performed by trained staff.

I certianly do.

I think we should America should be the shining light of th world. I don't think it is ethical to do such things to people no matter their position of rank in an enemy army or what kind of information we might recieve.

 

[jallman]

I certianly do.

I think we should America should be the shining light of th world. I don't think it is ethical to do such things to people no matter their position of rank in an enemy army or what kind of information we might recieve.

I can understand your view, but you are also coming at this from an extreme pacifism and I am not. I am not advocating for brutal torture of every soldier captured, but I am saying that some force is acceptable to make a high ranking officer or espionage agent more pliable.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I can understand your view, but you are also coming at this from an extreme pacifism and I am not. I am not advocating for brutal torture of every soldier captured, but I am saying that some force is acceptable to make a high ranking officer or espionage agent more pliable.

What are the benefits of making him more pliable?

 

[Donkey1499]

I say no; to physical torture anyways. Mental torture (like making someone look at a naked pic of Rosie O'Donnel) is good for if you need some info. But if they won't talk, then let them rot in prison, if you have enough evidence to convict them. But usually when someone calls fer a lawyer, they're guilty of something. But doing physical torture (like burns or beatings) should not be done by the US or anyone. It is barbaric and just lowers one's standards to the level of the enemy (in this case, the terrorists).

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Do whats needed to get the information to save innocent lives. Not all prisoners, but depending on the prisoner and the information, ya gotta do what ya gotta do

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Do whats needed to get the information to save innocent lives. Not all prisoners, but depending on the prisoner and the information, ya gotta do what ya gotta do

No, you don't do whatever you have to do. We're America. Do we really want to be reduced to such things?

 

[Donkey1499]

Do whats needed to get the information to save innocent lives. Not all prisoners, but depending on the prisoner and the information, ya gotta do what ya gotta do

I'd rather kill them on the battle field than take prisoners. NO SURVIVORS!!!!
RRRRAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! :rofl

 

[Donkey1499]

No, you don't do whatever you have to do. We're America. Do we really want to be reduced to such things?

I know, let's arm our military with spit balls to make ppl like Gandhi>Shrub happy! What a novel idea!!! LMAO

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I'd rather kill them on the battle field than take prisoners. NO SURVIVORS!!!!
RRRRAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! :rofl

DEADS DEAD.... But a dead man tell no secrets

 

[Donkey1499]

DEADS DEAD.... But a dead man tell no secrets

Nothing's sweeter than a dead terrorist; or biscuits and gravy.... MMmmmmmmmmm..... gravy....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos:
DEADS DEAD.... But a dead man tell no secrets

Yeah, but a stupid man tortures the living with un-educated bullshit!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Donkey1499
Nothing's sweeter than a dead terrorist; or biscuits and gravy.... MMmmmmmmmmm..... gravy....

My, what an appropriate avatar you have.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I know, let's arm our military with spit balls to make ppl like Gandhi>Shrub happy! What a novel idea!!! LMAO

You're intelligence is starting to show.