anyone saying yes is a fool, and every soldier knows why
2006-09-23 16:12:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by bush-deathgrip 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
What's your defintion of torture, and what information would the torturee have?
Even if the information supposedly held by the torturee were incredibly valuable, it's credulity would be highly doubtful. But then again, maybe that only applies to confessions.
At the same time, I find it hard to believe that any world leader (except perhaps the Pope) would refuse torture under any circumstances (even if torture were illegal). There are many situations in which torture would be the only method to get information that would save thousands or millions of lives, in which case any executive authority made up of politicians would choose practicality over principle.
2006-09-23 23:18:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nate 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
If we do it, then it gives them permission to do it. I have read the scenarios and the would you ifs. The bottom line is that the senate and the house will not allow torture because a lot of them have been in the military.
I am sure the other sides do it and it wouldn't surprise me if we did it. But doing it just gives someone else permission to do it too. This isn't a one way street. So why not ask instead what are the circumstances that people would willingly be tortured.
2006-09-23 23:22:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by nana4dakids 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
yes, I think torture is a valid method of interrogation. I know and I respect inalienable human rights of each and everyone, but what if the one being tortured holds very important information that can cause great destruction and loss of lives if not annihilation of mankind. I think violating the rights of the one being tortured is excusable and more logical than respecting his rights but putting the rights (the right to live) of the many civilian and innocent people into jeopardy and great danger.
2006-09-24 00:05:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by jesein 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Torture is a valid method of interrogation under the circumstances of operating a corrupt and greedy government ruled by ruthless and evil people.
saddam hussien is a valid example.
2006-09-23 23:41:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by brwnidjkmo 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Certain kinds of torture. Torture is difficult to define. A hammer to the toe is torture but so could be a hot/cold unventilated room. Certain degrees of torture are acceptable and are being used. It is excessive torture that must be avoided as all humans have certain inalienable rights no matter what side of the fence they are on.
2006-09-23 23:14:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
torture is a good way for interrogation as long as it is kept to an extent in my oppinion. some things are very harsh,but other things can hurt More and More over time, resulting in less pain but more "feeling" of wanting to tell.
2006-09-23 23:13:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by chuck 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. it is a non-professional approach to reach into reality. If in case the person tortured is not involved in the suspected issue at all, it will also be an action against human rights. overnments in countries with no (or with poor) democracy practices use torture to abuse human rights, just to stay in their power. To investigate what one did or what one thinks with a different approaches and cross-referenced questions is by itself an art and a science. Then it should be such skills that should be developed and cultivated.
2006-09-23 23:20:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mesfin Y 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Regardless of what individual people think why are the Geneva Convention rights being given to people it was not designed for, and why do we give our constitutional rights to non-citizens? I think that since those people do not legally fall under Geneva Convention Rules nor are U.S. citizens so are not entitled to our Constitutional Rights, anything goes. We as a country need to stop being weak and stop worrying what other countries will think of us, especially since they don't give a damn about us anyway and would stab us in the back given the first chance.
2006-09-23 23:18:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Wilkow Conservative 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you should broaden your question. Define "torture" for us.
There has been lots and lots of debate on this topic for the last year. I can tell you that humiliation, discomfort, sleep-deprivation...these things are not torture. This is all the U.S. has done to its prisoners of war.
If someone has information leading to the apprehension or death of someone who is planting roadside bombs to kill our troops, I have no problem with taking away that prisoner's shoes, headdress, and copy of the Koran, and keeping him awake for several days with loud music and strobe lights until he gives up what he knows.
The U.S. doesn't maim people.
2006-09-23 23:17:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by roberticvs 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Third degree interrogation is unrecognized in the civilized world. May be prevailant with the Military courts for war criminals.
2006-09-23 23:46:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by Seagull 6
·
0⤊
1⤋