Torture terrorism suspects?

Question

It should go without saying that terrorists are absolute scum who deserve to die. But it's easy for us to go along with the Government's proposals when we think everyone who's going to be tortured is guilty. So let's suppose that someone (a bitter enemy/rival of yours) secretely or anonymously tells the CIA that you're in league with al Qaeda or whoever. You're liable to be tortured, based only on an accusation, not proof. In effect, you're punished before you're ever declared guilty in a court of law. Does that even resemble justice?

Answer 1

Does that mean it is bad

Answer 2

John McCain knows. Bush and Cheney do not know about war, they are both draft dodgers. When our service men are in enemy custody the only hope is that the enemy will follow the rules. What Bush is saying is "now" there are no rules. Which takes away hope.
Bush has said "we do not Torture" Bush also said "the investigations can not go forward without the change I have ask Congress to make law". That means "we have tortured" and now Bush wants to make that non legal act legal. A service man who has done torture can be prosecuted for that non legal act.
A service person can now refuse to do a non legal act of torture even if ordered to do the torture by a commander or Bush.

Answer 3

Does that apply just to people who have been convicted of terrorism, or anyone the govt unilaterally labels as a terrorist suspect, before there has been any trial on the issue?

You've hit the key issue. If we go with the belief of innocent until proven guilty, then we can't just abandon the Constitution and give the government free reign to do anything it wants. It defeats the entire concept of Due Process, not to mention the entire 6th Amendment (which applies to ANYONE "accused", not just citizens).

Much longer version of the answer linked below.

Answer 4

Saboteurs and harassers have always been part of war. The Russian Cossaks that whittled down Napoleon's freezing army would have been called that. The American Indians tried to make life unimaginably difficult for the european invaders, who, in turn, despite promises of peace would give them no peace.

Personally, I would segregate, in the current conflicts, those who have immediately valuable information from those who are primarily mere combatants. I know at the beginning it would be hard to tell which captive belongs to which group, but the immediacy of need would be the crucial part. It is like that one officer that stuck a gun to the head of a captive, who then confessed of a plot a head to kill his men--that is immediacy, that is war on both sides of the coin. But getting one's jollies by electric shock and humiliating prisoners without purpose--that is wrong. Teaching an abusive prisoner manners is another issue, those troops at Abu Graib were simply out of line. Guantanimo, however, is not. Those are dangerous people intent on dangerous things and need to be kept out of circulation until the end of hostilities--it is like in Saving Private Ryan, many of the premises I disagree with, but when that soldier that had been held captive and they had showed mercy to then killed the good captain, it strains the virtue of mercy.

As for torture, if you twisted my arm or did other things to other parts of my body enough, I would probably admit to just about anything you wanted--how good is that information? That's not to say that you can't make life uncomfortable enough that I will slip and spill the beans on what I know. There is torture and there is torture, we haven't risen to the level of Saddam and his followers in cruelty on our worst days, but we certainly can abuse our powers.

Answer 5

I give you the thumbs down. Cause when we follow the Human Rights isssue than we should not bow down to the Terrorists by using turtore as the only way to get answers.

The military has way's of getting results by using tatics that are not inhumane towards prisoners. Also the Geneva convention, prevents us from forcing torture up on prisoner of wars.

There needs to be a slight disection of human rights and the aspect of torture. We shall use our senses in the way that we do not use harm to other's that are under us. So, I think the military is equipped with the right tools to do so. However, we can't expect the retrospect of the subject that Terrorists will act the same way!!!!

Answer 6

I have an idea. Let's capture the terrorists who torture captured Americans then cut their heads off and give them their day in court. They will be found guilty and just because they are in court, I'm sure they will spill their guts and tell us everything we want to know. Riiiiiight........

This is so ridiculous. We cant beat these "people" unless we play by their rules. Anyone who cannot see that does not understand our enemy or else believes that America is to blame and the terrorists should be pitied. That's just sick.

Answer 7

Torture NO, but when you have some of these high powered people, then use sleep deprivation, noise, or what ever it takes, but no beatings to get to the truth and save lives.

We cant be as bad as the terrorists, but we have to have tools in place to gain information. These people dont have rights because they are not Americans.

Think of the thousands who died at the hands of these peoples friends.

Answer 8

Torturing people is not the way to get at the truth. Torture makes people say whatever the torturer wants them to say. It should be quite clear from hundreds of years of Torture that it is not effective, it is brutal and it is not something any civilized person would agree to.

Answer 9

This has in fact happened. In Afghanistan, a rival warlord "turned in" evidence that another warlord was aiding the Taliban, and it turned out in fact, that he wasn't. Too late. The tribe was hit with military force and was destroyed. Not exactly as you portrayed it, but with a more severe consenquence.

Answer 10

Ok, but the torture they are talking about has been putting women underwear on thier heads, or allowing a women of all things actually question them, only men can question people you all know that. Or allowing women to see them and the women dont' have thier face covered. Such torture.

Or perhaps making them stand naked, or not allowing them enough sleep. or allowing dogs bark at them, or threatening them with a pig.

Ok, if that is torture I want every liberal to demand the police to arrest every college that allows things like that to happen on thier campus to freshment this year.

Answer 11

I have no doubt that much more is happening than than the public has been told. For the life of me, I cannot see anything acceptable in the U.S.'s even hooding their prisoners. Sensory deprivation is torture. Seeing those hooded, blinded, shuffling unprosecuted, untried, unconvicted people makes me (as a non-American) think that the U.S. is no better than its enemy.