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

Yes, under certain circumstances. I'm not for electricuting testicals or cutting fingers off. If we could do something to one person or a group, such as sleep deprivation, that would lead to obtaining information that could stop or prevent another 9/11 type terrorist attack, I'm all for it.

If you step back and look at what's going on, we're all concerned about how these terrorists are treated. Technically, they aren't soldiers and aren't affiliated with anything except a militia. They aren't covered by the Geneva treaty laws, as far as I know. I don't understand why people are feeling sorry for them if they don't have their books to read while in prison or if the music is too loud. If our soldiers are picked up by the terrorists, they're not given closely the same treatment. They are typically killed or held hostage till they are killed later. I wish we'd stop being so damn PC all the time cause that's what the terrorists are thriving off of. That's one reason why the cut the heads and show it on video... they know we'll be shocked, where as that's probably the same as a hanging over there.

Personally, I think the Middle East values human life very differently than the West. I think it's a bad thing, but can really see how they can take it to their own advantage.

My veiw on torture,is that..YES it could give you info,BUT would it be correct or just BS as the Suspect just wants you to stop torturing them.

Thats why Goverments would condone it,plus its against Geneva convention.

I agree with what pezking said, but I have some more to add.

I think people should actually be punished for crimes, not thrown in jail. You raped someone? Good for you, now you're going your dick chopped off and then raped in the ass repeatedly with a cucumber. I can bet you they wouldn't rape anyone again. You got caught stealing? Well you suck at being a thief, so lets start by cutting off a finger. What's that you say? Got caught stealing again? Not only do you suck horribly at being a theif, but you look like even more of a jackass after you get two more fingers chopped off. They should probably get get the shit whipped out of them with a cane too. You murdered someone and it wasn't in self defense? That is fine, but the punishment will be so bad that you will wish you were already dead while you're dieing.

Anyways, that's my system. There's a few odds and ends that should be worked out, like the age at which this stuff happens. I would think 14-15 would be a good number, since someone that age should know better than to do anything like that.

Jack Bauer for president. Enough said.

Old Man Mike

Geez, why are you guys fighting Al Qeda and the Taliban? Sounds like you'd make lovely dance partners. You want exactly the same thing.

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..

My wife thinks torture is fine...

wait, did I say that out loud?

Oops?

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.

Don't hold back on our account. Tell us how you really feel!

Actually, I don't watch 24 or CSI. I'm referring more to the prisoners that the coalition forces have interigated in Middle East or in our own prisons. We have gained intelligence of future attacks/bombings and have successfully stopped them. We have captured more people as well, many of them could have been the next Bin Laden. We captured Saddam and killed his sons through intelligence gained from friendly and interigation methods.

I'm not trying to say that people should have their limbs cut off... all I'm saying is that if interviewing a prisoner and playing loud music in his cell so he can't sleep can get information from him or her that leads to my countrymen not being killed, I'm all for it.

I'll try to find the issue of New Yorker that did recently did an article about 24 and how the CIA and Army want them to stop using torture on the show. They actually blame 24 for a lot of the abuse and torture that has gone on, because so many soldiers are fans of the show. If Jack does it on tv to save the country, then it must be ok. Personally, if the professionals say it doesn't work, then I'm against it. I say let the pros use the best method that they can. If they say torture is effective, then why the hell would we condone it?

Successfully stopped them eh? And you know this because evidence was used against them at trial and facts were proven? No, you are basing this on the government, i.e. George Bush and "unamed sources" saying this is so, just like they said Bin Laden and Saddam worked together, and you couldn't walk through Iraq without tripping over a WMD!

The Bush administration had played so much politics with the War on Terror you can't trust one thing they say about anything, especially the arguments that their "techniques" have led to all sorts of successes that, of course, they can't ever tell us about, "national security and all", but hell just trust them because politicians and their benefactors NEVER lie, right?

Oh, and Saddam's sons were turned in by their cousin for a $25 million reward, not torture or interragations. How they found Saddam, I'm not sure, but the account was they searched a farm, were about to leave, saw a guy on the compound that was there, and when they went up to him he immediately panicked and pointed to where Saddam was. What info you are sourcing to point out that Saddam was found "through intelligence gained from friendly and interigation methods." I have no idea.

By the way, here's the story Bargod refers too. Never read it before, but a quick Google search turned it up.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/arti...19fa_fact_mayer

Don't worry Flat, i saw your irrelevant, but still comical remark. Well played good sir.

In regards to Saddam's capture, not only did they mention the use of friendly intel but also used info gained from prisoners. This was in the media and a great special on History channel. I think it was called "Path to Saddam" or something.

Saddam's sons were captured through friendly intel. Read my statement again from the earlier post.



In regards to where I get my info, I assume wherever I get any information to support my opinions, you'll just debunk it with "Bush Terror Spin" theories. Again, I'm not for chopping fingers off really... just anything that will save more lives down the road. I'm for more pacifistic means of torture such as sleep and hunger deprivation. What's wrong with that? Don't call me a terrorist or compare what I'd like done to being just like Al Queda. I just want to save lives and if possible, live in peace.

All and all, I'm sure the war media has been spun to the govt's advantage. I have a few buddies in Iraq, a few in Afghanistan, and one about to be shipped off to Iraq. I get a lot of my info from them and find it extremely interesting to hear straight from the horse's mouth. Yes, they don't want to be there... just like you didn't want to be in summer camp away from home. They are homesick, they dont' like be shot at, etc. All and all, they think they are making a difference and enjoy most of the Iraqi's that they've met over there. They want it to be over just like I do, but they're doing a job that they're being told to do.

Sorry if we don't meet eye to eye, I didn't expect everyone to agree with my opinion.

What context do you mean justifiable? On a personal level to save a family/friend or innocent's life in immediate danger via info someone refuses to divulge I'm sure if you're capable of using drastic measures you'd use it as the right thing to do perhaps... I'm not sure if justifiable enters the equation in those discussions. Just like I'm pretty sure if we're getting invaded on the homefront by an enemy using infantry wave attacks, all of a sudden the use of mines won't seem like a bad or unjustifiable weapon- rather the right weapon for the moment.

slim, seeing as this is university level work, you got to go for the "anti-torture" school of thought. use selected quotes from Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, Plato's REPUBLIC, and Machiavelli's THE PRINCE, and you will get an "A". Sounds like a philosophy/humanities beartrap, and you don't want to step in it. You could also throw in a bit of John Locke's Treatise on Government for political liberties, but i think that Hobbes' covers that pretty well.



Good Luck


Guest Lecturer Lead


------------------------
"Ja, its not easy being Grun"

Do the ends justify the means? This is very important when looking at the justificatioin of torture. I feel that if a life or lives are in imminentent danger and after all other means have been exhausted there is a chance that interrorgator using torture will save lives then it is justified. One must remember that a person who uses torture must also be accounable for his/her behaviour/actions.

I believe that when a crime is personable and serious in nature such as the kidnapping of a child or the murder of a family member, it is normal to want the perp to pay the price, "an eye for an eye". But each case is different and must be approached in a manner that will best resolve the case and let our Criminal justice system follow it's path. If you look at a child who has been kidnapped and you believe the child is still alive in grave danger of death, you must realize that torture may not extract the information you need.



Each interrorgator must look at each perp and determine how best to extract the vital information. Everyone has different buttons....and how you use apply your interviewing techniques may determine the outcome of evidence. Evidence obtained by torture is inadmissable in court. So if there is no imminent danger to save a person life, using torture would not be justifiable.



When we correlate it to terrorists, we must keep in mind that many of them have the mind set that they are ready to die for there cause. These means that torture may not have any psychological effects on them. They may provide questionable or false confessions to stall the torture, but at the same time this lengthens the investigation and causes the investigators to lose vital time in bringing the case to a conclusion. The first 24 hours are the most critical in any criminal investigation.



T/A6Pak

In wartime we (and anyone else in the war) will use whatever weapons at our disposal to win said war. Common sense. I don't see us using torture unless our enemies have brought that particular tactic to the table. I'm trying to envision having a nice chat with a terrorist that doesn't have a real desire to live, free or otherwise. Talk about pointless conversation. The majority of people on this planet want to live free. Notice the word live before the word free. To beat the enemy one first has to get their attention. Pacifism during wartime just gets the other cheek slapped. I don't know about you but I only have 2 cheeks (on my face). Goes back to the old 'fool me once' scenario.



-Pain

You should read the article that I linked. Miltary teachers believe torture almost always elicits bad or useless info. However, aside from that, have we forgotten that we got to this point in history where the free nations of the world dominate PRECISELY because we HAVE NOT made torture and mayhem a part of our society? Haven't we won because we have consistently been BETTER than them, not just in the size of our militaries, but in our will to fight for what is good and right because we know, as a whole, our society has been so much more worth fighting for than one where the governments torture and abuse anyone they perceive an enemy?

Anyway, the whole torture debate seems based on the false premise that heck, if we'd just torture like the bad guys, THEN we win, they only reason we don't win is because we aren't cruel and ruthless enough. But many years of interragation techniques used by the militaries that actually WON wars says this is not so. The Soviet Union tortured countless people over the years where the USA was, for the most part, playing mostly by the rules. Who won people? Is torture and the information it produces really all it is cracked up to be?

Anyway, it is funny to watch 24 and realize that the bad guys are always dumb, torture them for a few seconds and they spout the truth about everything. Torture a "good" guy and they keep their mouth shut, or tell lies. The entire torture debate seems to be based on this black and white scenario that is so removed from real life it is laughable.

Why are you saying that it's based on a black and white scenario? Also, our country has not based our interigation methods upon torture, but for you to think that it doesn't happen is just naive.

Just wondering then, since you're SO against any type of torture, how would you get information from an enemy? How would you extract intel from a German in WW2? Oh that's right... we should just put them up in a nice hotel with clean sheets till the war is over cause that's what they're doing for our guys. The f-ing ACLU is trying to have anything beyond basic interigation (name, rank, etc) considered torture... so you'd basically be for gaining absolutely NO information from captured enemies?

Again, sorry if you think I'm making a black and white scenario... but you haven't made any, just slamming everyone else's opinions.

I'm not just slamming everyone's else's opinion, I'm making my points as best I can.

Read the article I linked and read what you own military teachers think about torture. There are proven interragation techniques, and they don't involve torture. I know, I know, they don't have that yummy, violent "revenge" aspect to them, but they are what generally work, so when torture methods are known to not work well and are also morally reprehensible, I don't know what on earth the argument can be for them. Once you get past the fictional scenarios where when the good guys use torture, it always works, and get to the real world the conclusions are torture is a rather useless method if you want HONEST intel. I mean, if all you want is *any* intel or a confession, true or not, torture works. You can torture almost anyone to say ANYTHING, which is why non-democratic countires love it, they are less concerned about finding out the truth than gaining confessions for kangaroo courts. But is that what we want?

You're confusing me with other people's posts. I'm not for finger chopping and stuff. I'm for interigation and getting intel. I'm not glamourizing tv or movies... although, did anyone see LOST last night. Based on Sayed's past of torturing prisoners while he was in the Iraqi National Guard.

MOD, where are you based? When you say "your own military teachers" it's making me assume that you're outside of North America?

I'm not for revenge, I'm actually very empathatic most of the time. I understand that most soldier's are just doing their jobs and don't always agree w/their own govts. decisions on matters.

Whether we think torture is right or not, it has been and still will be used when needed. If you think that the US has not restored to torture many times, then you are completely wrong. There has been many cases or torture that even the public knows about, let alone what we don't know about. Not in all cases are we the ones doing the torturing but us sending our prisioners to Jordon where torturing is allowed to try to gain information for our beneifits is the same as us doing the torturing.

However, asking the question is torturing justified.. no it can't be, but are we and will we still try to use it to save lives, yes. The question is will we involve in our justice system.. for example giving a torture warrant? Given from the highest levels of goverment for only extreme cases, and if torture is done without this warrant the person who done it will be held responsible. Maybe if we had something like this in place it would cut down on the amount of unneeded torture that goes on. Such as at guantanamo prision.
Maybe something like this may help?


Thanks lead, i'll look into those.

I'm feeling tortured now.....