Is torture and acceptable means to collect information from terror suspects.?

Question

Do you not woory that in a short time that using torture will ecome a tool for everyday interogation in the United states .
What if we arrest a known drug dealer but some how the shipment of 2 pounds of meth is missing .Do we use torture to make him tell us what we want to know .After all it will kill people .Same if he is dealing perscription drugs like methadone for pain which is known to kill people .
See if a kidnapper is caught but the child is still not found do we use torture .
Once we allow it in any form to corrupt our legal system and method of interogation it will be abused by people who say yeah but this guy you know we had to to get the information or people would have died .
I fear any nation that allows torture and now that my own does i fear for all those people in the future who will give false confessions and be subjected to hours and hours of torture in a vain attempt to get what we want out of them .
I understand that our troops are and have been treated badly .

Answer 1

I have never understood how wicked evil big meth amphetine etc. dealers are before reading your logic. Thank You.

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 is 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 at getting information?
There is great evidence to the contrary.

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 not just ram radical ways of doing things down everybodies throat like the world is going to end tomorrow. We are in a fight that will last forever despite what scaredy cats may think. Let's do battle wisely.

Something else - reasonable minds will disagree. However, if you want to have a strong opinion you should first understand all the reasons of the other reasonable mind. That's reasonable, right? Sometimes the other side won't be able to explain themselves fully so you may have to work to figure it out.

Make it a Great Day!

Answer 2

You lose any right after you've broken law, other countries cut body parts off if you do certain things, do you think "those" people (terrorists) are afraid of us, no, because we go by law, but it was proven that 14 terrorists cracked under a particular torture, it took our test soldiers less than a minute to break under the same "torture " technique but it took the terrorist over 3.5 minutes.....New enemy needs new rules......just like if you kept the laws the same , women would never had the right to vote and we'd still be living in segregation, and of course look at the fact they are taking pluto out of the history books , since it suddenly is no longer a planet.....as long as morality is handled properly or even if its just "rumored " we torture maybe people who are willing to die for there cause will give second thoughts, have a great weekend

Answer 3

I hear that doing what is counter intuitive can work very well. I heard an experienced interrogator explain that showing courtesy and starting a dialogue is a way for suspects to open up. We should never condone what terrorists do but we should try to see things from their perspective, at least so we know what we're dealing with. Terrorists think that they are entirely justified in what they do. Oftentimes, they harbor resentment over many slights, real or imagined. Showing respect can disarm them. Is the goal to punish them or extract useful information?

Answer 4

Part of the question is where do you draw the line. Is psychological coherence torture? If an officer in Iraq fires his gun next to a prisoner to acquire information, is that torture? True story. If you pipe in Celine Dion music is that torture? HAHAHA Plus if you take away the possibility of torture, then would people talk? If the enemy knows we won't use torture would we get information?

These are just questions that need to be asked to define policy on torture. Not to defend torture.

In the examples you listed, the policy should be against torture, but if I was a cop and I had a kidnapper in custody, screw the rule book, whatever it takes to find the kid, and hope they take it easy on me when they figure out how I got the information.
The drug dealers torture is wrong..

Answer 5

It depends how you define torture. I define torture as sawing off of limbs and mutilation simliar to that.

But what US troops do right now and what the president is advocating is NOT torture; playing loud music, sleep depravation, isolation, etc. These are what as known as "physical pressure" they leave no lasting damage and can help give interogators what they need; information and contacts.

The president is not advocating that physical pressure be used on US citizens either. That is just a knee jerk reaction from liberals who dont know any better. We need to continue to press illegal combatants for information and not confer rights to them. They fought out of uniform, they put civilians in harms way, they have chosen their own path in life. Btw: This has been done by the US in every war we've ever been involved in. Except during WW2 illegal combatants were actually executed.

Answer 6

Civilized nations say no to torture. That's what the Geneva Conventions are (were?) about.

Also consider the people who are arrested and tortured who have been found totally innocent. For example, a Canadian citizen of middle eastern origin was arrested while changing planes in the US, then whisked off by the CIA to black hole torture in Europe. He confessed to stop the torture. It was all a case of mistaken identity, which the authorities quickly realized. However, they held him for a year probably because they were afraid that he would tell his story once released.

"Tortured by Mistake The case of Maher Arar shows why the Bush administration's secret detention program is wrong."

Answer 7

No, because everyone would lie to make the torture stop. Secondly, they are 'suspects', they are not even charged or proven as terrorists by the court, and we are to allow torture or detention without trial, based on mere suspicions? What ever happened to presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

A lot of you say, what if your mother, sister, brother are the victims, and wouldnt you want to do everything including torture to get information. Ok, what if it was your mother, sister, brother etc who was detained without trial or ever being proven guilty by court and they are tortured, merely based on suspicion or false info???

Answer 8

You make a good point. Torture is not only NOT morally acceptable but also NOT a reliable way of getting information. A tortured person would say anything to make it stop. But your point re where does it stop and is it acceptable for police to apply it is scary. Also, if we set this precedent then our soldiers in all future conflicts WILL be treated this way.

Answer 9

It is morally unacceptable plus it is ineffective and often counter-productive. Morally unacceptable is self-explanatory. It's ineffective because people will make up anything to avoid torture. When the "made-up stuff" is then checked out and leads to dead ends using tax-payer funded resources, American time and money has been wasted- along with our moral credibility.

The President, along with many conservatives and Republicans, have crossed over into insanity on the torture issue.

Answer 10

yes. torture is acceptable it is in accordance with the geneva convention.

without various means of getting information we will not win the war. and even if you are not pro war you should be pro winning if you would like to keep your way of life..

what other option is there in a war like this? sit down to a stern talking too and make him sit a the table until he eats his brussel sprouts and tells us his plans for the nukes???

seriously ... grow up..