I know it's a little bit cliche, but this question is a good illustrative point....
If there was a bomb about to go off in an American elementary school and you had the guy that planted the bomb in custody, would you be willing to torture the location of the bomb out of him in order to diffuse it, or would you condemn all of those innocent children to a terrible, painful, violent death ala Beslan, Russia?
I bet that the most vocal opponents of "dubya's torture plans" on Yahoo Answers avoid answering this question like the cowards that they are.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
2006-09-19 15:58:08 · 23 answers · asked by salaamrashaad 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Look at the ridiculous appeasing answers below...
If it were their kids, do you think the answerers below would change their tune? If you ask me, anyone who would willingly let a school full of kids die, is just as guilty as the terrorist themselves, and equally deserving of the noose.
2006-09-19 16:05:38 · update #1
I guess some people need further explanation...
The problem is: the terrorist is th eonly person who knows WHICH school the bomb is at... C'mon You all know it's not as easy as you're making it out to be...
2006-09-19 16:27:18 · update #2
Torture is wrong no matter what the circumstance. When are you guys going to get it. Human rights, the most important right of all. If we resort to using the tactic's of our enemy's we become our own worst enemy.
2006-09-19 16:01:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
In the scenario you describe there would be no need to torture the suspect.
The children can be taken to a safe location, bomb squad called with their sniffers and locate the bomb. If they can't find it in time then the only thing that is lost would be the school building itself.
The only time torture would be called for would be if police investigation techniques didn't work and they did not know which school would be bombed or couldn't locate the bomb at the schools.
It takes time to break down a human being, torture might not be of use given the time frame. But would relieve a lot of frustration
2006-09-19 23:12:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Great question and excellent follow up.
The best real example I can think of is recently, when the Saudis "questioned" a terror suspect in Saudi Arabia, he gave up all the names of an Islamic terror cell in London. The members of this cell were subsequently arrested in London - just prior to implementing their plan to blow up two commercial jets over the Atlantic Ocean.
Would your responses be the same if the families and loved ones who oppose terror so vehemently were scheduled to be on these planes? And, more importantly, given the oversight of these bleeding heart liberals - if the United States had detained this dirt bag - do they think we would have gotten that information? Do you think the terrorist gave up those names during casual conversation over a hot meal and a glass of wine?
One terrorist's "rights" vs. the lives of hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
My opinion - there's no room for debate here.
2006-09-19 23:22:48 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I knew for sure I would consent to torture. HOWEVER it is extremely un-American for such a thing to be done. Within the given time limits there is no way for a fair trial. You couldn't really be certain that you have the right guy. The Bill of Rights protects against cruel and unusual punishment even if a fair trial was possible.
2006-09-19 23:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by onanist13 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd evacuate the school. If you say there's not enough time for that, then there would not be enough time to torture the slob. GW does not have any torture plans. READ MY LIPS as GW's daddy says---GW wants clarification of the broad terms used in the torture regulations. He wants that because there were objections to the use of this horrible torture of playing "Red Hot Chili Pepper" music and forcing the prisoners to stay in a room with the temperature in the mid 30s Fahrenheit. I don't know why I bother with you guys. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You say GW's supporters would avoid this question because they are cowards. Why does one have to be brave to get their hands a Littlee dirty for cleaning up a littl BS?
2006-09-19 23:21:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You should have just let the question sit without showing your card (s?) so early....
Steven Segal would try to beat the location out of him, but life ain't Hollywood.
Any answer that such a sick, twisted person is likely to give is not to be trusted. More lives could be lost by believing in a sudden, convenient change of heart.
I wouldn't waste my time asking, to be honest, but keep looking in a systematic way.
2006-09-19 23:05:35 · answer #6 · answered by Bart S 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Torture is never right. Period. The world agreed upon that decades ago. Lots of countries do not abide by this. Our country should. If we are these fine examples like Dubya says, and we are just here to spread freedom and democracy, then Dubya should not lie. Freedom and Democracy hinges on a freedom from physical torture. If Hizbollah jumps off a bridge, does that mean we should too? See, you already knew the answer, because ma and pa kettle that raised you, probably did a good job. And to think, you just grew a little inside.
2006-09-19 23:03:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
If you have time to find and defuse a bomb.. you have time to evacuate the school so you do not have a legitimate senario. Torture is against the Geneva convention that the United States has signed. If we allow Bush to continue to violate that convention, we cannot hope for any other country to be our ally in any future conflict. Torture is wrong. Period. I am no coward.. but I know foolishness when I see it.
2006-09-19 23:13:58 · answer #8 · answered by Silvatungfox 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
And you my friend are missing the point too.
We have to take a stance against torture publicly so they do not do it to our guys.
But in reality, we do it to them and they do it to us.
President Bush is pro torture. His advisers are pro torture. The one with the most military experience out of Bush and all of his advisers, is Bush himself from his days as an air national guardsman in Texas. In other words, no experience.
The Senate who is debating this issue right now, is full of men who have been in the military and are still in the military who understand the need for the Geneva conventions protections.
But faced with your scenario I would expect the government to do what is necessary and then deny the whole thing.
2006-09-19 23:17:12 · answer #9 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you are sure that torture will work in this specific case than it is necessary of course.
My problem with using torture is, who decides when it is to be administered and by whom.
A big opponent of "dubya's torture plans" is John McCain, I would not consider him a coward.
2006-09-19 23:02:16 · answer #10 · answered by brwnidjkmo 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you could get a location that was guaranteed to be truthfull then it would be a viable option...but you can't. Fact is a determined human being could withstand any torture that could be dealt to him/her. You can't stop a human from doing anything they want, and you can't hold the rest of the world responsible for the decisions of one.
2006-09-19 23:20:14 · answer #11 · answered by Joshua Pettigrew 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋