should torture be allowed?

Question

By who? when should it be allowed? what about the "ticking-time-bomb" senerio? should the courts regulate it? is there a differecence between physical and psychological terror when torturing? is there such a thing as humaane torture?
For class assignment and I am running out of ideas... any thoughts on the subject would help greatly!

Answer 1

Personally, I think it should NOT be. I'm not one of these PC folks who believe that all cultures are basically equal...I think that some cultures are MUCH superior to other cultures, and I don't want to see us stoop to the level of that scum.
I'd have no problem enforcing the Geneva Convention VERY strictly, however. Under Geneva Convention regulations, any battlefield participant who is not wearing a recognized national uniform can be considered a spy, and stood against a wall and shot. (Then no one could complain that we make 'em wear underpants on their head.)
Regardless of what we choose to do, one thing I am absolutely adamant about:
If we do decide to use torture, then quit being a hypocrite about it. I do NOT want to see the actual soldiers who administer the torture get court martialled and sent to prison, while their officers and "higher ups" who either ordered the torture (or else turn a blind eye to it) are allowed to wring their hands and go scott free.

Answer 2

There can be no absolutes here.

In the main and in general terms torture should not be acceptable in any civilised society. It's use by the US in Iraq has actually done more harm to the US than it can possibly have achieved in gaining information.

In mentioning the ticking time bomb you have raised the liberals nightmare!! IF you hold a man who can stop a bomb going off and killing people can it be justified to torture him? I am sure there are many people out there who would say no. But lets escalate it. What if the bomb will kill all the children in a large school? Still No? What if it is a nuclear weapon in the heart of a major city and will kill millions?

The simple answer has to be that where torture is not morally acceptable for the vast majority of situations there has to come a time when the greater public good prevails.

If someone sees a person about to shoot ten people and they have access to a gun and the ability to shoot the gunman first but choose not to do so - are they not just of guilty of the murders as the gunman?

It is long overdue for world politicians to put the debate about torture on centre stage and define the public good scenario.

Answer 3

If you want a more legalistic answer, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws governing the armed forces (article 1, section 8, powers of congress, off the top of my head) and as Congress approved the Geneva Convention, the military is bound to it. Bush does not have the authority to order any military actions which go against the Geneva Convention, or any other treaties or laws ratified by Congress on military conduct.

The only excuses I've heard for torture is that our enemies are no longer considered human. You can't win a war that way. Dehumanizing people will only bring more enemies, it always has and it always will.

As for the ticking time bomb, I haven't heard any precedent that they exist... but nobody would fail to do whatever necessary to get this information, no matter whether it was legal, and I imagine that retroactively they would be forgiven... I don't think it is justification to legalize torture just in case. Also, labeling "enemy combatants" is outside Bush's authority as well.

Answer 4

No, it shouldn't be allowed. At what point would it stop? Where would you draw the line? Where would information gathering end, and sadism begin?
There is no such thing as humane torture. That's an oxymoron.

Answer 5

Torture is a subjective term. To me Rap music is torture, Illegals streaming over the border is torturous to our budget. If we know someone who we feel has information that will save lives, I say go for it.

Answer 6

I have to say that i don't think the ticking bomb scenario has ever happened, even though its most used to justify torture.

Also using torture tends to have devestaing effects on victim, families and society, you can see in the Cental American countries.

It does not lead to a decrease in violence as far as i can see.

Answer 7

I believe, in a war situation, where lives are at stake, making an enemy combatant phyically (roughing up) and psychologically (loud noises, lights, sleep deprivation) uncomfortable to obtain information should be expected. Physically and psychologically "terrorizing" (scaring) someone...oh, well. Physical or sexual mutilation...no.

Answer 8

If you are faced with lets say a million people dying from a hidden nuclear weapon, and you have someone in custody that PROBABLY has the answer
to where it is hidden, then I think torture
is justified.

I mean it's ok for the pro-choice people to break a almost born babies arms and legs so they can pull them from the mothers birth canal.......

Answer 9

Torture is practised by a lot of middle eastern states and paid for by western governments, namely UK and USA who don't like to be seen to get their hands dirty but are not against paying to get information by any means.

Answer 10

no way to allow because now we are in threaten world if we traveled to strange country, if we suspected by any security officials. what will be happen to us? if we go through that experience do u think can resist from that circumstance? think at least selfishly in some matters. why did u choose that topic.