Is Torture Justified?, University Paper.. Options

[Slimshady]

I'm writing a paper and whether or not torture is a justifiable act. I just wanna hear some your opinions, later i'll put up some scenarios to see how you fell about them.

Thanks

[Slimshady]

One question though. After you chop of someone's dick and rape them in the ass with a cucumber, then find out the person was actually innocent, exactly how do you correct that mistake?

Excellent point, see one problem with allowing torture is the fact the person we are torturing may not have any information that we need. There was a case not to long ago of a man suspected of being involved with the 9/11. He was sent to Jordon.. maybe, i'm not sure. Either way he was sent somewhere that torturing people is a acppectable way of interrogating someone. He was torture for over a year before they found out that he had nothing to do with it. I believe that it was still only a small price to pay.. because if that man did know something then it could have been possible to save hundreds of lives. In my opinionn death is unrated and pain is over rated. However sending him to another place for someone esle to torture him because our laws don't allow it.. isn't that the same as us torturing him? Shouldn't we be held responsible for these actions? Just because we weren't the ones that actually doing the torturing we still gave our premission to do so for our benifits, to me that is the same as if we done the torturing, and we should be held responsible.

Torture if used at all, should only be used to save lives not to punish anyone. If it is used for punishment then you are just as bad.. actually worst then the person who commited the crime.

So far no one had said that they think torture should never be used. Which is unusual because most people think that. Due to human rights and just being humane in general. I believe that torture should only be used in the most extreme circumstances..

For example.. If there was a suspected terrorist was being held, and we had enough evidence to suspect him to be involved with a bomb that was supposed to go off sometime today. you have done everything you could to try to get the information from him and he has givein you nothing. Would you torture him to try to save hundreds maybe 1000's of lives? Most people would say yes, but keep it from the public.. And then questions our accoutibility of our goverments and our democratic society, and how everything is supposed to be recorded and taken note of..

So I don't know.. this topic is fucked in all different ways.. it seems like no matter what decision is made there is no right decision. No matter what happens something has to be done wrong, human rights will have to be broken.. it is just whether it is going to be the terrorist or the innocent people that are the target..

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

One question though. After you chop of someone's dick and rape them in the ass with a cucumber, then find out the person was actually innocent, exactly how do you correct that mistake?

Excellent point, see one problem with allowing torture is the fact the person we are torturing may not have any information that we need. There was a case not to long ago of a man suspected of being involved with the 9/11. He was sent to Jordon.. maybe, i'm not sure. Either way he was sent somewhere that torturing people is a acppectable way of interrogating someone. He was torture for over a year before they found out that he had nothing to do with it. I believe that it was still only a small price to pay.. because if that man did know something then it could have been possible to save hundreds of lives. In my opinionn death is unrated and pain is over rated. However sending him to another place for someone esle to torture him because our laws don't allow it.. isn't that the same as us torturing him? Shouldn't we be held responsible for these actions? Just because we weren't the ones that actually doing the torturing we still gave our premission to do so for our benifits, to me that is the same as if we done the torturing, and we should be held responsible.

Torture if used at all, should only be used to save lives not to punish anyone. If it is used for punishment then you are just as bad.. actually worst then the person who commited the crime.

So far no one had said that they think torture should never be used. Which is unusual because most people think that. Due to human rights and just being humane in general. I believe that torture should only be used in the most extreme circumstances..

For example.. If there was a suspected terrorist was being held, and we had enough evidence to suspect him to be involved with a bomb that was supposed to go off sometime today. you have done everything you could to try to get the information from him and he has givein you nothing. Would you torture him to try to save hundreds maybe 1000's of lives? Most people would say yes, but keep it from the public.. And then questions our accoutibility of our goverments and our democratic society, and how everything is supposed to be recorded and taken note of..

So I don't know.. this topic is fucked in all different ways.. it seems like no matter what decision is made there is no right decision. No matter what happens something has to be done wrong, human rights will have to be broken.. it is just whether it is going to be the terrorist or the innocent people that are the target..

I don't think torture should ever be leagally sanctioned. The world where you have a guy you know has info that will lead directly to a bomb that is going off shortly (and who will give you perfectly accurate info after a few seconds of torture instead of bullshit) is only on television. People have to stop thinking of the war on terror as something that is as simple as CSI and 24 where all things can be fixed in a day, the bomb can be stopped with 1.4 seconds left, and everyone can have a coffee afterward.

However, if there was ever a real life situation where you needed the info instantly, my advice is to whoever is at the spot, DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO! Don't expect your government to tell you it is OK to maim, torture, or kill to get the info you need, because the second we tell interragators they can do that, some of them will do it to anyone who is uncooperative, even if they were only uncooperative because they didn't have any info to give. Nope, if you think you can save hundreds of lives by torturing someone, go ahead, you do it, and pay the consequences if you're wrong, or extract usless info that sends the investigation off in completely the wrong direction. If you're right, there isn't a jury in the world going to give a crap that you cut off Mr. Atta's fingers to get the code that allowed you to defuse the nuclear bomb that was going to go off in 5 minutes. You're a hero, they'll toss out any threat of conviction based on "extenuating circumstances". But keep torture technically illegal so that if someone does it, they aren't doing thinking that, right or wrong, cutting of the fingers of "Joe Atta" won't have any consequences for them because totrure is perfectly legal and justifiable because Mr Torturer thought his victim, err, suspect, *might* have had some useful info.