Torturing terrorists is effective and it is saving lives. Is torture justified?

Question

Please understand that I am not advocating torture, but stating a fact: torture works and information gathered during torture has prevented terrorist attacks in our country.

Does that justify inhumane treatment of terrorists? I want to say that torture is never justified, and it makes us no better than the terrorists... but if we didn't do it, more blood would be spilt by their attacks.

I have no more words to describe it. Torture is reprehensible, and the alternative of simply allowing terrorism to continue is equally awful. What are your thoughts?

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

If you want to know what prompted this question, click on the link. Methods of torture employed by the CIA are described along with information that has been extracted during torture.

Answer 1

The torture issue has got to be the most complicated of all. It seems so obvious that it works and needs to be done. We can't sit back while terrorists plot against us. We need inormation. It is so difficult to get information in the far corners of the earth otherwise. If we stay within the old rules it is almost impossible to successfully prosecute or do anything to get these guys.

If there be a ticking time bomb why don't we torture the terrorists associates, wife, and infant child? And why not do the same even if the terrorist is an American citizen? Where do we draw the line? This line we walk determines our future.

To admit that torture is what should be done in the ticking time bomb situation is to admit that torture works. This is not clear at all. Torture is nothing new and history has much data on the subject. Our elders that created the legal framework in which we live probably had more experience on the subject then we do. I feel it is important to prove, or at least make a case, that torture works AND is advantageous BEFORE you turn against established wisdom.

Can anyone even prove that torture works in the first place? The below reports from U.S. government experts suggest not. I spent a lot of time reseaching the effectiveness of torture with an open mind when I wrote this... I would like to see support for the effectiveness of torture if there is data to do this.

My feeling on the ticking time bomb: if an agent in the field wishes to take exceptional action in the exceptional circumstance of a ticking time bomb, that agent can deal with the consequences be they good or bad. We don't need to establish a new policy just for this case. The president can pardon a hero from just about anything.

This is a CIA article about the interogation of a man who was the North Vietnamese equivalent of Osama Bin Laden.
https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no1/article06.html

This is a comprehensive scientific article on the subject by a leader at the US Air force academy:
http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html?Study/Report

This is a time magazine piece that goes over the records and result of our torture of the '20th hijacker':
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html

I hope those who support our torture practice can take the time to read these articles and not attack anyones patriotism for disagreeing with the practice. The rules of dentention, punishment, and interogation all may need changed.
We all want what is best for America. Let's figure it out patiently and do battle wisely.

Answer 2

FIRST you desire a sparkling definition of what's or isn't torture. i'm a experienced interrogator. I actual have considered "torture" up close and private. maximum of u . s . a . has an faulty definition. to illustrate, "waterboarding" isn't torture. reducing off palms is torture. Smashing feet with a hammer is torture. yet waterboarding is in basic terms uncomfortable, there is no everlasting injury the two actual or psychological. Over 2,000 American troops have been waterboarded in coaching.... that's much less risky than studying to SCUBA dive. Torture is bodily or mentally unfavorable the detainee. 2nd Is torture ever justified? not often..... maximum prisoners have little information it incredibly is so pressing and time gentle it demands such severe measures. There must be a sparkling extensive ability earnings formerly we compromise our ethical imperatives. 0.33 The previous reasoning that we don't torture by way of fact the enemy will then torture our troops is stupid. What we do or do no longer do has no impact on the enemy. they're going to probable torture even kill our troops no rely what we do. The previous reasoning that we don't torture by way of fact the sufferer will say something to end the soreness is purely approximately as stupid. the guy being interrogated purely approximately constantly lies, with or without torture. it incredibly is the reason we constantly ensure information independently formerly any action is taken. we don't torture on account that's faulty. There must be a distinction between our movements and the enemies movements or we are the two the "undesirable men". Treating the enemy humanely and with understand is on no account a incorrect coverage. It has saved my life two times that i be responsive to of......

Answer 3

What you left out is quit important... The reprehensible torture they are talking about is blasting Red Hot Chile Pepper music and keeping the detainee in a cold room... When people see the word torture they think about the worlds peaceful Muslims decapitating people on the Internet.... By the way not giving a detainee 8 hours sleep is also considered torture.... When is the last time ANYBODY had eight hours of sleep.....I think Bush should keep pushing for clarification of the Geneva Convention guidelines and continue what works.. If they really want to torture them , they should use Alice Cooper music along with a slide show!!!!

Answer 4

no it doesn't. i'll tell you why...

how do you know what is true and what isn't? if you think about it... you really don't know, do you? you have ideas about what is realistic and likely, but unless you witness an event yourself, you will be at the mercy of witnesses who must tell you the truth. and you have no way to gauge it. that is why our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty"... how do i prove i didn't do something? there is no evidence left to show i wasn't somewhere, so the law must be structured to prove positives rather than negatives. we picked that structure because the european systems were the opposite: if you were accused of a crime, you had to prove innocence.

that is also the way torture works. i can torture people forever, regardless of their guilt. there is no natural threshhold that i know of, that will make me stop if i think the person is withholding information, especially if i think my loved ones lives are at stake.

the choice you describe at the end, is not the one we are facing. if we torture people, we have no guarantee that they will confess to true things, because they may just be inventing things to make the torture stop. there is no guarantee that any of the people we interrogate know anything of value.

why should we torture people, to create potentially confusing truths that distract our soldiers from the job at hand? the truth is what we are looking for, we should not let our zeal for it turn us into monsters. there is no reason not to torture anyone, because you have no way of proving innocence. but you are wrong when you say it is effective or justified. there is no way to prove that either.

here is exactly what i mean... jill w makes the same assertions you do, and gives this article as if it supports the thesis, "torture saves lives". this is from the time article, on the interrogation of the "20th hijacker":

"The detainee’s physical condition is frequently checked by medical corpsmen—sometimes as often as three times a day—which indicates either spectacular concern about al-Qahtani’s health or persistent worry about just how much stress he can take. Although the log does not appear obviously censored, it is also plainly incomplete: there are numerous gaps in the notes about what is said and what is happening in the interrogation booth beyond details like “Detainee taken to bathroom and walked for 10 minutes,”

whose life did this save? who? this happened to someone... and who was saved? none of the victims of 9-11 and no one else, because this is the result:

"On Jan. 10, 2003, al-Qahtani says he knows nothing of terrorists but volunteers to return to the gulf states and act as a double agent for the U.S. in exchange for his freedom. Five days later, Rumsfeld’s harsher measures are revoked after military lawyers in Washington raised questions about their use and efficacy, TIME reports."

preceding this account of how this person was tortured for two years for no measureable gain you state:

"My feeling on the ticking time bomb: if an agent in the field wishes to take exceptional action in the exceptional circumstance of a ticking time bomb, that agent can deal with the consequences be they good or bad. We don't need to establish a new policy just for this case. The president can pardon a hero from just about anything."

sure... how many times? how many people do you torture, before you torture the right one? and if you are pardoned... are we sure it is because you were a hero, and not simply a beast?

Answer 5

If you torture a man long and hard enough he'll tell you he shot JFK, sank the Titanic, started the Great Fire of London and wrote the lyrics to American Pie. That doesn't necessarily make it so. 2 words for you to Wikipedia - Birmingham Six - in fact here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_6
Just because you coerce somene ito saying something..doesn't mean you know any more than you did before it.

Answer 6

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. I'm assuming that this question was initiated by the treatment of Muslim extremists by American soldiers. Well, I'm British and I think the back-lass that the USA is getting over this is totally unjustified. That fact is that the middle east is about 800 years behind the west in its development and because of this the two cultures will never be able to interact. Its time that the west gave up on them and let them get on with doing whatever they do. In answer to your question, torture is a necessary evil when countries are in a state of war.

Answer 7

If you want to torture terrorists, don't say to the world you represent the democracy and the human rights in the world anymore.

Answer 8

I thought we were fighting for our free and human civilization that Osama and his followers do deeply despise not to replace one form of fascism with another.We have to stay within the boundaries of International law or any victory will be worthless.
Terrorists will have succeeded in changing our way of live.

Answer 9

Put yourself in the terrorists' place and then ask that question. Would you want to be tortured for information? Torture is not pretty and it is not fun. I think that there is a better way, and his name is Jesus. Evangelizing your enemy is a better way to extract information from him than using drugs, whips and pliers.

Answer 10

What if they suspect some of ur loved one of carrying some information, and do torture to that person ? will u justify it then ?