CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should terrorists ( ISIS , extremists , etc. ) be tortured for information ?
When a terrorist is captured should we torture them in an attempt to gain information or should we not torture because they have feelings as well and are likely not to talk anyway ?
1. Torture not being worse than another unrelated act does not justify torture.
2. Source citation, please?
3. An assumption of guilt before being proven guilty generally accompanies acts of torture, given both prevailing attitudes on the matter (particularly concerning non-nationals) and the imperative of time urgency that precludes a thorough investigation and trial. Further, by this rationale it would be permissible to torture non-terrorists presumed to have committed heinous crimes (whatever those actually are)... which has consistently been ruled illegal and unethical by many legal bodies internationally.
If we hold a terrorist, whom we believe has information that we can use to save others from continued acts of terrorism, it is our responsibility to use every means to get that information.
This does not include murdering children, raping women, or videotaping beheadings. These can remain the practice of the bad guys.
If we hold a terrorist, whom we believe has information that we can use to save others from continued acts of terrorism, it is our responsibility to use every means to get that information.
And who bestowed the responsibility to the US? Also, what if the information is falsified? Or what if the information in the mind of the person being tortured isn't what's really going on and they were told this for just this occasion?
Then, what acts as a measure for responsibility? Then what constitutes the use of torture? What actions require it utilization?
This does not include murdering children, raping women, or videotaping beheadings. These can remain the practice of the bad guys.
So, if a group of people commit these acts torture is the logical response? I'm not condoning the actions committed by the perpetrators, but what makes it right to commit acts of violence by bombing men (regardless of what they have done)?
We the people of the United States, have every right to defend ourselves. We field a standing army to protect our nation and its interests. We elect officials and collectively charge them with the responsibility to protect us.
So, if a group of people commit these acts torture is the logical response?
I clearly outlined the situation in which we are compelled by urgent circumstance to use the means necessary to defend ourselves.
what makes it right to commit acts of violence by bombing men (regardless of what they have done)?
The "right" is our right to defend ourselves.
I have read your comments. I regard you as a kind natured person with deeply held religious beliefs. I understand your feelings. BUT.........
We the people of the United States, have every right to defend ourselves.
Who bestowed you that right? Do you see where I am going with this? If you can give yourself a right then can't they do the same?
We field a standing army to protect our nation and its interests.
I know, but the US is pretty well known for having an already to widened interest pool. The US practically has interest in every surface of the Earth.
We elect officials and collectively charge them with the responsibility to protect us.
I didn't see a ballot for torture. I don't remember being asked if we collectively wanted this to be legal. Also, keep in mind that "we" doesn't mean the US a whole. Especially since lots of people don't vote. That means that the voters chose this, and then you can even go further and say that only those whose votes actually decide of torture is to be used counts.
I clearly outlined the situation in which we are compelled by urgent circumstance to use the means necessary to defend ourselves.
That doesn't answer my question. I will ask you again, is torture the logical response if these acts are committed?
The "right" is our right to defend ourselves.
Yes, I understand, but what gives a human the right?
I have read your comments. I regard you as a kind natured person with deeply held religious beliefs. I understand your feelings. BUT.........
Know two things:
Motive matters.
These things are Caesar's.
Yes, I hold my beliefs quite deep. So, can you give me the list of motives and clarify what you mean by "these things are Caesar's"?
Yes, I understand, but what gives a human the right?
Our founders correctly determined that we each have a GOD given right to life and liberty. If someone tries to take my life, I have the right to defend my life. Collectively this becomes the right of our society to defend itself.
is torture the logical response if these acts are committed?
No, the logical response is defense. In the act of defense, information is often vital to success. Getting that information is warranted when it will save innocent lives.
Motives matter. Contrast the motives of ISIS with our motive to defend our own lives. They intend to slaughter anyone who will not turn to Islam. Their motive is to purge the world of unbelievers, reinstate slavery and the total domination of women. Our motive is to defend ourselves.
These things are Caesar's. Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's Matthew 22:21
Our founders correctly determined that we each have a GOD given right to life and liberty. If someone tries to take my life, I have the right to defend my life. Collectively this becomes the right of our society to defend itself.
Yes, I believe God gave us these rights, but to torture another man is another story. I believe we have the right to defend our lives, but our collective lives are not at risk. I am not at risk. I doubt you are at risk either. I doubt most American citizens are at risk. This "collective" establishment seems to be the collective dictation of a mere fraction of the people. I wouldn't call this collective.
No, the logical response is defense.
To defend against what has already happened? If a man murders children we are to torture him for information?
In the act of defense, information is often vital to success. Getting that information is warranted when it will save innocent lives.
While blowing up others who we deem a threat. Then they see it as killing innocent people. It's like a vicious circle if I may say. Also, what are the chances of information being falsified or inaccurate?
Motives matter. Contrast the motives of ISIS with our motive to defend our own lives. They intend to slaughter anyone who will not turn to Islam. Their motive is to purge the world of unbelievers, reinstate slavery and the total domination of women. Our motive is to defend ourselves.
Have they attacked America? Then does this still warrant torture?
These things are Caesar's. Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's Matthew 22:21
Sorry, I missed that reference, but I don't understand how it applies to torture and its legitimacy.
I believe we have the right to defend our lives, but our collective lives are not at risk. I am not at risk. I doubt you are at risk either. I doubt most American citizens are at risk.
Your confidence in the safety of you and I does little to forestall the threat of terrorism. Did the people killed on 9/11 think themselves safe? To deny the likelyhood of what has already come to pass is to defy reason.
To defend against what has already happened? If a man murders children we are to torture him for information?
I believe it to be obvious that such defense is against recurrence.
While blowing up others who we deem a threat.
Are we still debating the necessity of torture, or are you shifting your argument to gain some advantage?
Also, what are the chances of information being falsified or inaccurate?
Should we then abstain from actions unless the outcome is certain? No. There is risk in many needful things, the possibility of failure cannot stand in the path of defending.
Have they attacked America?
Terrorists attacked America on 9/11. ISIS has beheaded Americans and posted video of the act for the world to see. They openly threaten to bring terror to our shores again. YES they have attacked us, are attacking us and will continue to attack us.
Sorry, I missed that reference, but I don't understand how it applies to torture and its legitimacy.
Perhaps I was too parse in my reference. My my meaning was this. Our government is our proxy in dealing with threats against us. I withdraw my reference in the cause if clarity.
Your confidence in the safety of you and I does little to forestall the threat of terrorism.
Your propaganda of a small threat doesn't constitute, nor warrant, the use of torture.
Did the people killed on 9/11 think themselves safe?
Yes, did the innocent people we slaughtered in the following war think they were safe? Probably not. We ended up becoming terrorists who wanted to end terrorism. So, we fight terrorism with terrorism.
To deny the likelyhood of what has already come to pass is to defy reason.
We know where the group is. It's not like these events happened on our soil and was directly aimed at us. These are different. I don't even think we were a target to begin with. This is why I doubt we are at risk. This doesn't defy reason, this uses the very thing.
I believe it to be obvious that such defense is against recurrence.
So, we terrorize to stop the terrorism. Then if the torture tactic gives no information or misleading information then what do you say? If an American man tortured a domestic terrorist I'm pretty sure the man would be charged. Why is this any different when we do it?
Are we still debating the necessity of torture, or are you shifting your argument to gain some advantage?
You're missing the point. It's hypocrisy.
Should we then abstain from actions unless the outcome is certain? No. There is risk in many needful things, the possibility of failure cannot stand in the path of defending.
And this makes torture a valid and moral option?
Terrorists attacked America on 9/11.
ISIS didn't. You know who I'm talking about.
ISIS has beheaded Americans and posted video of the act for the world to see. They openly threaten to bring terror to our shores again. YES they have attacked us, are attacking us and will continue to attack us.
It becomes clear that you have fallen into the pit of liberal confusion that would blame us for the hatred and intolerance of cowards. We are somehow not the defenders of freedom and they are somehow noble in their quest to kill or inslave all who are not of Islam. On this point you have taken the dark path. Perhaps in time, you will see more clearly.
Umm no. There is no dark path. There is no light path. There is no confusion. Just what's in front of us. America and ISIS are going to terrorize each other. In the end I don't see you demonstrating what constitutes the use of torture, but since you have called this an end then so be it.
How could you know that , if they were I doubt the government would tell everyone , " all your life's are at risk ."
To defend against what has already happened?
If you don't think that something like 9/11 could happen again and that it is unnecessary to defend our selfs from potential genocide at the hands of extremists you might need pay attention to current events .
Have they attacked America ? Then does this still warrant torture ?
During WW2 Germany never attacked America , Japan did . But when we found out Germany's motives of purging the world , like ISIS , we tortured them for information and we would have tortured Hitler had he not committed suicide . Why people feel that is okay when the same thing is happening today is beyond me .
How could you know that , if they were I doubt the government would tell everyone , " all your life's are at risk ."
We are connected to the internet. You can see nearly anything you wish. The government cannot hide everything. Even then how could you know we are if I see no immanent danger? I'm pretty sure these matters weren't aimed at us to begin with, but America has to be present in matters everywhere. Sticking its nose onto everything the light shines on.
If you don't think that something like 9/11 could happen again and that it is unnecessary to defend our selfs from potential genocide at the hands of extremists you might need pay attention to current events .
Oh, yeah. Let's talk about 9/11. Let's see, 3,000 deaths, correct? Of course this lead to torture and over 100,000 deaths. I'm pretty sure we became the terrorists. We also have our security well beefed up and if you want to torture every suspicious man in order to protect 3,000 lives then you have problems. Am I excusing what the terrorists did on 9/11? Not at all, and they have to pa for what they did, but torturing people and slaughtering 100,000 people is no excuse. That's nearly 30 events of 9/11.
During WW2 Germany never attacked America , Japan did . But when we found out Germany's motives of purging the world , like ISIS , we tortured them for information and we would have tortured Hitler had he not committed suicide
That's completely different than our situation here. We aren't in global war. This is a group of extremists. Even then what makes your beliefs greater than theirs? In there eyes aren't you the terrorist?
Why people feel that is okay when the same thing is happening today is beyond me .
We are connected to the internet . You can see nearly anything you wish . The government cannot hide everything .
Yes because if someone posts " Everyone in America is going to die " people will definitely take it seriously ( sarcasm ) .
I'm pretty sure these matters weren't directed at us to begin with .
Yes , extremists just believe all Americans to killed . And then crashed a plane into the twin towers . That definitely wasn't directed at us ( sarcasm ) .
If you want to torture ever suspicious man in order to protect 3,000 lives then you have problems .
True , but we aren't talking about suspicious people we are talking about people directly related to the extremists , and it's not to protect 3,000 people it's the entire American population and the Israeli population . And the Israelites are the chosen people God according to the religion you proclaim so much on this website .
That's completely different than our situation here
Considering extremists want to commit genocide does that really matter ?
We aren't in global war . This is a group of extremists .
Who want to practically eliminate the entire planet .
Even then what's makes your beliefs greater than theirs ? In their eyes aren't you a terrorist ?
The do think I'm a terrorist . But they think that because I'm of a different nationality , which is racist . I see them as terrorists because they want to commit genocide , which is rational . Their beliefs are RACIST and mine are RATIONAL . Which is why my beliefs are greater than theirs . Also , did you know the God ordered a biblical leader to exterminate all Muslims so extremists groups would arise like ISIS . He refused to kill them all and that's the only reason we are having this debate now .
Maybe because the same thing isn't occurring
Let's see , a group of extremists who want to commit genocide . Besides other countries being involved their is practically no difference .
Consider the following :
Consider 5 more American journalists have been captured . In front of you is sitting a terrorist closely linked to the terrorist that captured them . He clearly knows vital information . You are given a baton . If it would save the lives of those 5 Americans would you not beat him to get information ? Even if the information is false , you have better chance of saving the Americans than if you just sit there and do nothing . If you beat him , the terrorist will not die . If you refuse to beat him , the 5 journalists' chances of survival drop significantly . So which would you choose ? Torture the terrorist or show the terrorist mercy ?
Yes because if someone posts " Everyone in America is going to die " people will definitely take it seriously ( sarcasm ) .
Not even what you were talking about. This isn't even going along with the debate.
You said - How could you know that , if they were I doubt the government would tell everyone , " all your life's are at risk ."
I'm pretty sure ISIS posted some videos. Are you saying that we shouldn't take it seriously or what? Then, along with that, how does your response tie into your first question?
Yes , extremists just believe all Americans to killed . And then crashed a plane into the twin towers . That definitely wasn't directed at us ( sarcasm ) .
That wasn't ISIS....
True , but we aren't talking about suspicious people we are talking about people directly related to the extremists
And?
and it's not to protect 3,000 people it's the entire American population and the Israeli population
From what? Have they come up with a way to kill every person in America? Clearly, they wish for us to back off. You might as well say 9/11 happened for no reason, I wouldn't doubt that you believe this. Then, what does this have to do with torture? And how are you demonstrating that we should use torture?
And the Israelites are the chosen people God according to the religion you proclaim so much on this website .
Mhmm, what does this have to do with torture? Also, why bring my personal matter into the debate?
Considering extremists want to commit genocide does that really matter ?
Yes, hence me saying that. You said it was the same. It isn't.
Who want to practically eliminate the entire planet
No, they wish to spread, and force, Islam across the middle east.
The do think I'm a terrorist . But they think that because I'm of a different nationality , which is racist .
I don't think it's racist, but okay. Also, when I say you I don't mean you personally, I mean the general you they seen on TV or something.
I see them as terrorists because they want to commit genocide , which is rational .
They don't want do, they'll do so if they have to. I already told you their goal.
Their beliefs are RACIST and mine are RATIONAL .
Really?
Racist - a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
I don't think they believe that the typical Caucasian is inferior to them. It would seem like you are the one who lacks rational thinking.
Which is why my beliefs are greater than theirs .
This doesn't prove your beliefs are better than anybodies. Same goes for me. My beliefs are not superior to anyone's beliefs.
Also , did you know the God ordered a biblical leader to exterminate all Muslims so extremists groups would arise like ISIS
What verse supports this?
Let's see , a group of extremists who want to commit genocide . Besides other countries being involved their is practically no difference .
You already started off wrong. The first was a radical group of people who wanted revenge on America.
This is a group of radicals that wish to convert the middle east into Islam.
I am not seeing these as the same at all.
Consider 5 more American journalists have been captured . In front of you is sitting a terrorist closely linked to the terrorist that captured them . He clearly knows vital information .
Stop right there, how do I know he has vital information? How do I know the information he has is accurate? How do I know the information he has wasn't falsely told to him just in case he is captured? This is an assumption.
You are given a baton . If it would save the lives of those 5 Americans would you not beat him to get information ?
No, because I'm being a terrorist to a terrorist.
Even if the information is false , you have better chance of saving the Americans than if you just sit there and do nothing .
No, if I was given false information that would suck. I could put my soldiers lives at risk trying to play hide and seek.
If you beat him , the terrorist will not die
Probably not, but he most likely would want to, and that's not good in my book.
If you refuse to beat him , the 5 journalists' chances of survival drop significantly .
"Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent and perhaps the most successful U.S. interrogator of al-Qaeda operatives, says the use of those techniques was unnecessary and often counterproductive. Detainees, he says, provided vital intelligence under non-violent questioning, before they were put through "walling" and waterboarding."
So which would you choose ? Torture the terrorist or show the terrorist mercy ?
Neither of the two, because other options are available.
Wow , you arguments are making it seem as though it is okay for the extremists to express their beliefs that genocide is fine . how does this time into your first question ?
Because ISIS isn't going to tell the internet where and when a bombing will take place .
That wasn't ISIS .......
Still an extremist attack on American .
Have they come up with a way to kill every person in America ?
There actually is a pretty simple way to using weather patterns and a well placed nuke .
You might as well say 9/11 happened for no reason .
It did , Bin Laden was a psychopath with a small army of terrorist at his command who American .
Clearly , they wish for us to back off
Why should we back down from a legitimate threat to our country ?
What does this have to do with torture ?
So stuff like 9/11,doesn't happen again .
Why bring my personal matter into this debate ?
It's called an emotional appeal , only debating 101 . Do you not think that torture should be used to protect both the Americans and Israel ?
You said it was the same . It isn't
Genocide is still genocide .
No , they wish to spread , and force , Islam across the middle east .
And they will commit genocide to do it .
They don't want to , they'll do so if they have to .
Regardless , they are committing genocide .
It seems like you are the one who lacks rational thinking
Admittedly racist probably wasn't the correct word but racist and rational have alliteration so I couldn't help myself . It's prejudice . So their beliefs are prejudice , and will kill over it , so seeing them as terrorists is rational . Since someone is of a different faith , the see them as terrorists , which is prejudice . So my beliefs are still greater seeing as they are based on reason and logic .
What verse supports this ?
To be honest I remember reading it in the old testament but I don't remember the verse , and doing internet bible searches proved fruitless so you got me their .
This an assumption
I probably should have been more specific but I meant the terrorist you captured was the right hand man to leader of the kidnapping operation so it is extremely unlikely he has faulty information .
No , because I'm being a terrorist to a terrorist .
No , your being patriot to your country by trying to save innocents .
I could put my soldiers life's at risk
Irrelevant , the military would send in spy planes to scout out the area to make sure their are extremists there . Even if the hostages prove to not be there who have either captured or killed several terrorists .
Probably not , but he would most likely want to , and that's not good in my book .
What are you talking about , a beating would not make him want to commit suicide .
Read this article
I did , I didn't mean that torture should be used first . I meant as a last resort . You would obviously use interrogation first . In the scenario , again I should have been more specific , non-violent question had failed .
Neither , other options are available
I meant mercy being one of those other options . Again my bad on being ambiguous .
So after all of that lets just agree to disagree and stop this petty argument because it is getting us nowhere . The only reason I posted the above arguments was to show that I didn't want to stop only because I couldn't think of a valid argument . Honestly these arguments are getting way to long . So , you are fine debater and this was fun but it has to end . Good day .
Wow , you arguments are making it seem as though it is okay for the extremists to express their beliefs that genocide is fine .
Yes, it actually is. An American could say the same thing. I don't care who you are. You can express your beliefs. That's something America allows. I'm surprised you said that.
Because ISIS isn't going to tell the internet where and when a bombing will take place .
No, they won't and it seems like you missed the point, again. You just asked "How would we know?" That's how. ISIS pretty much announced their plans. If we intervene they will strike. We have intervened. They may strike. Immanent danger is different.
Still an extremist attack on American .
Do you even read what you post?
You said - Yes , extremists just believe all Americans to killed . And then crashed a plane into the twin towers . That definitely wasn't directed at us ( sarcasm )
This doesn't apply here.
There actually is a pretty simple way to using weather patterns and a well placed nuke .
Yes, because they have a nuclear warhead.
It did , Bin Laden was a psychopath with a small army of terrorist at his command who American .
The syntax you use is odd. Makes it hard to understand what you are trying to say.
Also, no. It happened because America intervened in matter Al Qaeda didn't want them to. They don't like western influence. We knew about Al Qaeda before 9/11. We know about Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. There was an attempt to blow up the towers before. Why do you think that?
Well, Al Qaeda doesn't agree with the US foreign policy. We can put it at that simply. If you wish for me to clarify I won't mind.
Why should we back down from a legitimate threat to our country ?
We shouldn't, just don't torture people.
So stuff like 9/11,doesn't happen again .
Then don't intervene.
It's called an emotional appeal , only debating 101 .
That's not an emotional appeal at all. That's practically an attack against me. I would say ad hominem, but this seems to be a lesser form of it. An emotional appeal is just an appeal using emotion. So if I wanted you to donate to a charity that gives animals shelter I would display pictures of abandoned dogs. I would use people's personal things.
Do you not think that torture should be used to protect both the Americans and Israel ?
I think you should be able to answer that by now.
Genocide is still genocide .
Alright, well it seems you're going to be as thick as a brick. I wouldn't call 3,000 people genocide. Maybe 100,000.
And they will commit genocide to do it .
Like we did.
Regardless , they are committing genocide .
Wow, okay. They killed maybe about 10,000 people so far, so sure you can say "genocide", but this doesn't mean torture a man.
Admittedly racist probably wasn't the correct word but racist and rational have alliteration so I couldn't help myself . It's prejudice .
So, their actions aren't based on reason? I think they have a reason. Whether you agree with the reason is what the focus is.
So their beliefs are prejudice , and will kill over it , so seeing them as terrorists is rational .
Everybody is prejudice in some areas. I wouldn't call their motives or beliefs prejudice, but yes they do count as terrorists. Didn't say it was irrational for them to be labelled as terrorists.
Since someone is of a different faith , the see them as terrorists , which is prejudice . So my beliefs are still greater seeing as they are based on reason and logic .
That is very poor logic. I don't they see other Muslims are terrorists. They see people who commit acts of terror as terrorists. This means they aren't prejudice in this regard. Which means your beliefs aren't greater.
To be honest I remember reading it in the old testament but I don't remember the verse , and doing internet bible searches proved fruitless so you got me their .'
Alright. I was just curious.
No , your being patriot to your country by trying to save innocents
Sure, but I'm still terrorizing a terrorist.
I probably should have been more specific but I meant the terrorist you captured was the right hand man to leader of the kidnapping operation so it is extremely unlikely he has faulty information .
Umm no. It's still likely that the information you will get is incorrect or inaccurate. Did you read the article?
Irrelevant , the military would send in spy planes to scout out the area to make sure their are extremists there .
It's not irrelevant. You need to read a dictionary for once in your life. You're killin me smalls.
What are you talking about , a beating would not make him want to commit suicide .
A beating on the level of torture? Yes, some people would rather die than be tortured. A terrorist won't say anything if you come in there with a belt.
You would obviously use interrogation first . In the scenario , again I should have been more specific , non-violent question had failed .
Yes, and still risk having false information. Makes your source rather unreliable.
So after all of that lets just agree to disagree and stop this petty argument because it is getting us nowhere . The only reason I posted the above arguments was to show that I didn't want to stop only because I couldn't think of a valid argument . Honestly these arguments are getting way to long . So , you are fine debater and this was fun but it has to end . Good day .
Presumably women and children are innocent. But why should we not videotape beheadings? Wouldn't it be useful to have on tape to put the necessary fear into the next captive?
Do you think that torture should be codified into our standard operating procedures? Do you think it matters that torture is usually a poor interrogation method?
Mainly because torture is not a punishment and the detainee has the option at any time (even before the torture) to tell the investigator what they want to know...
I don't think that gives anyone the right to conduct the torture in the first place. Torture usually isn't a thing people comply to. That would be like someone telling you to tell them your social security number of face being ran over by a car. In no way would a rational person comply with either option.
I'm saying that when one is captured after committing horrendous acts, they have essentially given up their rights because of how much they've disregarded others'. This alone doesn't really warrant torture, but if there is an urgent matter and the only thing that stands in the way of saving hundreds of lives is the torture of a murderous and evil individual, I don't think "rights" should get in the way.
I'm saying that when one is captured after committing horrendous acts, they have essentially given up their rights because of how much they've disregarded others'.
Then, by that logic, is the torturer giving up their rights as well? Would this then apply to the American government as well?
This alone doesn't really warrant torture, but if there is an urgent matter and the only thing that stands in the way of saving hundreds of lives is the torture of a murderous and evil individual, I don't think "rights" should get in the way.
I agree, but torture is not reliable. I don't prefer it at all. However in times of desperation, and as a last resort, it could be used, but I still see it as unreliable.
Then, by that logic, is the torturer giving up their rights as well? Would this then apply to the American government as well?
No.
I agree, but torture is not reliable. I don't prefer it at all. However in times of desperation, and as a last resort, it could be used, but I still see it as unreliable
Of course, it shouldn't be a normal practice, but if there is a considerable level of belief that the person possesses sensitive information, it should be an option. And I'm all for prosecuting officials that warrant unnecessary torture.
I have no problem with torturing terrorists. They are not uniform soldiers and have no loyalty to any government. They have one objective and that is too destroy the Western way of life.
But you must also define torture. To a lot of bleeding heart liberals, shouting at them, not giving them 8 hours sleep or three nutritious meals a day is considered torture. And I am not making this up. There are wackos on the left who truly believe this.
Do what you have to to make them talk and save lives. The problem is we don't go far enough with torture to get the valuable information out of them.
By torture I mean like waterboarding , minimum amounts of food and water , beatings , electrocution , putting hot metal on their arms or even their face . Something along those lines .
I think terrorists should be killed straightaway - I believe they should be wiped out completely. They are plotting sick plans to destruct the whole world - they are a threat to human life and have already destroyed countless numbers of peoples futures.
What do we do to mass murderers in this nation? We execute them in every intelligent State of our nation. Hmmmmm let me think about this now....... is executing someone torture? Yes, I think it is. Terrorists are murderers. They are not an army fighting another army. They purposely murder innocent people who have nothing to do with the war.
Multiple states in the U.S. do not authorize execution under any circumstances, and you have not substantiated your assertion that those that do are the "intelligent" states in the union.
You are conflating execution and torture, however U.S. law treats them very distinctly. The prevailing application of those execution laws that remain on the books is to minimize the infliction of pain during executions; the intention behind torture is expressly the opposite. You have presented a tenuous rationale for executing terrorists convicted of first degree murder, but not of torturing them.
If one human lies between the U.S. or other countries saving thousands of lives isn't it reasonable that the rights of that person should be set aside and put the safety of many ahead of the health of one especially since most terrorists that are captured are criminals anyway.
The unreliability of torture is significant. It is known that torture can lead to the victim simply telling their torturer what they think they want to hear in order to stop the session, regardless of whether what they are saying is true or complete. An unwilling source is an unreliable source.
That's all been demonstrated as true. But now we need to get down to a definition of torture. There are some conditions that may aid an interrogator which could be considered torture by some but not by others. It's not actually a very clear notion
But now we need to get down to a definition of torture.
That is a very good and important point.
Could we argue that torture begins where intimidation transforms into actual harm?
And if we agree to that, would waterboarding or Batman dangling a thug off a roof (knowing full well he won't allow his subject to come to harm) count as torture?
Its this ambiguity, combined with the well-documented unreliability of the practice that put me into opposition to it, rather than the proposed rights of the torture victim (though that issue definitely warrants discussion as well).
Could we argue that torture begins where intimidation transforms into actual harm?
I don't know about that definition. It seems that torture is more extreme than simple harm. To be held captive is to expose one to stress levels that may be damaging or harmful
Imprisonment causes harm. By your definition I would hold it equivalent to torture, but I didn't accept that definition. I think that, whatever the proper definition of torture is, it should be as extreme as the word itself implies.
Here's a question: what is the dividing line between interrogation and torture? Is interrogation limited to simply asking questions in a forceful manner? Can threats be considered? Etc
I really don't know. People don't want to put a solid definition on torture because someone will find a torturous technicality to get around it. This is the issue.
Indeed. I think the best bet is to minimize reliance on unwilling informants in the first place. One would assume that's what's already being done, that so-called "enhanced interrogation" is a last resort born of desperation.
But I think one would be wrong in that assumption.
Either way, it seems prudent to be constantly upgrading and employing all other methods of intelligence gathering. And perhaps, accepting that in some cases we're going to be in the dark no matter what and simply try to be prepared for anything.
A tall order to be sure, but perhaps more effective than relying on enemies to spill their guts. Especially fundamentalist terrorists who would rather die anyway.
To be honest, if pulling toe nails proved 100% effective, I would expect it to be done as necessary, but I still wouldn't make it a matter of standard procedure.
I probably should have put this in the description , my bad , but I meant should torture be used as last resort if normal nonviolent interrogation failed .
This was my main point as well. I also recently provided an article to a user that explain the even the best interrogators know that when people are in pain the will say what you think is right so that the pain can stop.
I have to post on this side of the debate because I don't believe it should be government policy to capture and torture for information.
That being said, I think that troops always have and will do what they needs to be done in times of war to win the battle. Ticking bomb scenarios pushes an agent beyond normal boundaries to a position that no group of peers would convict for. This still doesn't mean it should be standard, government sanctioned practice.
Yes they should be tortured. No it should not be standard policy.
EDIT: Of course this all depends on the world standard definition of torture, which is pretty weak.
