anti torture liberals, please answer?

Question

Hypothetical question:

There is a man who has kidnapped 30 children, and has them tied up in a basement without access to water or food.

The man was video taped kidnapping them on a security camera.

This man is found walking around a day later and arrested. He refuses to disclose the location of the children, no matter what deal is offered to him.

DO YOU NOT THINK HE SHOULD BE TORTURED TO FIND OUT THE IFORMATION TO SAVE THE CHILDREN,

Or do you think his comfort is more important than the lives of the children?

Answer 1

About Me
Member since: February 16, 2006
There's the moral argument and the legal argument. Personally, anyone who has done what you suggest above doesn't get any moral consideration. So, morally, I see no obstacle. But then again, I'm not a liberal.

The legal argument is very simple. If someone is tortured, you cannot prosecute them for anything related to the torture.

So, the authorities get to trade off the issues. If you need to torture the kidnapper to get information, that gives them a walk on anything related to the information obtained via torture.

In the situation above, it's a toss up between prosecuting someone for the crime, or saving the children. But that's only because the hypothetical includes conclusive proof of the crime.

Answer 2

I would hold him and use the legal system as it is intended and hope that good detective work would find the children. Although you may think video is the end all to crime solving and we should torture this person just what would happen if you tortured an innocent man? Tough sh*t for him. Life is not that simple and there are too many mistakes made just because somebody thought they knew the "true story." I think the lesson learned is two wrongs don't make a right. Simple as that may seem it is not stupid.

Answer 3

Your circumstance skews what the focus of the opposition really is, which is that under the Geneva convention at least certain indignities are promised absolute condemnation by many nations. It is a social Golden Rule by which the awful crucify themselves through disregard.

Of course I would beat the crap out of the guy until I knew where the children were. That is the specific reason that people like myself are only permitted to enforce local law and tote explosives to blast away foreign opposition: I am not that big of a person.

You absolutely know that the comfort of guilty people over the innocent is not what the other side of the matter boils down to, and frozen abstractions like this one, that focus on an extremely unpleasant thought and assign personal fault to it, aren't helping people who disagree to suddenly do it.

I really wish you hadn't thrown the L word around. A position is a position without implicit affiliation unless affiliation is clearly stated and otherwise using such labels as slurs is downright childish, and totally obnoxious.

Answer 4

So while you're afraid that is okay to brake the guidelines that made this u . s . super? Torture does not paintings. do no longer you recognize that we are putting our militia human beings in extra peril, by ability of no longer following the Geneva convention? chicken hawks that in the process no way went to war, ordering torture. do no longer you notice what's incorrect with that? We discovered a manner around that Geneva convention element? Do you somewhat think of that calling a individual captured on the conflict field an enemy combatant skirts the convention? purely yet another Orwellian word. this could be a rustic of rules, and a few of them have been broken.

Answer 5

I'm a Pro-turture liberal. I got that painted on my campaign bus to win me some votes in Texas. I'm runnin for chief torturer, Dallas/ Fort Worth area. I hope I can count on yer vote.

Well, let's see know. Let me think about that for a minute. Are any comparisons at all. Oh wait, how bout old Jeffrey Dahmer, or that killer clown guy, or Ted Bundy. We all knew exactly what they did. We didn't torture them, yet we still got the truth out of them and executed two of them. The inmates took care of the third.

In general terms, torture has been pr oven less effective than more civil methods.

And Tofu Jesus, you are a genius!

Answer 6

Are you that ignorant that you believe he would give the actual location? Laws are made so when we are put in an unbearable position we don’t become savage animals, that’s why the law is to keep us within certain boundaries. How about this I’m driving down the road and an idiot cuts me off making me run off the road should I be able to chase him down and beat him senseless because I would sure like to but there are laws that prevent me or anyone from becoming the animal were capable of becoming in certain situations.

Answer 7

"Or do you think his comfort is more important than the children"

Dude it's not about comfort. Why do you think it's about supplying comfort to prisoners??? It's about humane treatment of humans - whether they're enemies or not.

For a criminal suspect such as your hypothetical mentions you should use all legal tools at your disposal. Torture is no more reliable than any of these.

Answer 8

Because you have actual video tape of him committing the
crime, torture him.
Now if you're talking about GITMO, those guys are detainees,
held under suspicion. If one of them is tortured & later found
to be innocent, it would look very bad for the United States.

Answer 9

Torture doesn't bring back or remove. He should pay back with his life, not death that don't help anyone. With giving his organs for transplants, blood, eyes etc until he pays all he has. This would benefit society in a positive way.

Answer 10

No, because torture is not now and never has been a reliable source of information. He will lie about it.

Trick him into giving the information.

And if some officer of the law did torture him to get the information, he should receive a severe slap on the wrist and be told to stop that.