I heard an audio clip of Clinton supporting the use of some strong interrogation methods if the U.S. has a suspect in their hands that has knowledge of a real and imminent terrorist attack. Tell me what you think. Is there a time to use torture against an enemy?
Here's the link. It's three minutes long and worth a listen.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/audio-clinton-endorses-torture-in-special-cases/
2006-10-19 15:53:08 · 11 answers · asked by nobody 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
well i would say yes Its 1 person our 50,000 Well maybe not that much but do we want yet another 9/11
2006-10-19 16:08:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
from a legal standpoint: There is no protections for torture [see 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment]. the onyl way to possibly justify it legally would be to look at it as to whether or not torture is a fundamental right in America, and thus protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution. So then what is a fundamental right? A fundamental right, by definition, is a right that is so deeply rooted in our culture, that an enlightened society could not function without it. Under this definition, an enlightened society would not torture people for information. Therefore, there is no legal support for torture. From a moral perspective, i suppose it depends on your morals. But, again, an enlightened society would not torture. We also need to look at any ramifications for torturing people. If we do it, other countries who look to us for guidance [and some still do] may also torture. Furthermore, we could create international incidents for Americans abroad, who may end up victims of torture because America had tortured their citizens. Ok, if the person is a domestic terrorist [like Tim McVey] torture should still be off limits. Torture goes against our very principles of governance. So my answer would be no, it is not appropriate to torture for information.
2016-05-22 04:15:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all the CIA is a clandestine organization and could have been much more successful in their interrogations, if the politicians stayed out of it and minded there own business. Instead they interfere with the operations and then whine on television for maximum exposure , that our Intelligence is not as effective as it could be. I believe any method is acceptable if it saves life's.
2006-10-19 15:59:50 · answer #3 · answered by mimi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Torture is not a valid method of getting information from a suspect because it is a violation of the Geneva Convention which provides rights of prisoners.
2006-10-20 02:10:17 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
okay, fine if you must i'd say torture then afterwards. if the thing fails or if they're found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. torture then afterwards.
but torturing people in that situation is just a waste of time because you can't know whether they're telling the truth or just speaking so the pain should stop.
2006-10-19 16:13:56 · answer #5 · answered by Can I Be Your Pet? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes they should, if the man is known to be a terrorist and they have info that he knows information on a bomb, 1 terrorist life could save 1000 innocent people. torture him till death
2006-10-19 15:55:08 · answer #6 · answered by a 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, torture the animals
2006-10-19 15:54:09 · answer #7 · answered by John Scary 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Torture is never appropriate. For the simple reason it is unreliable, the victim will eventually tell you whatever YOU want to hear, true and real or not.
2006-10-19 15:55:14 · answer #8 · answered by Dane 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no they should not torture him.he should be asked for the information that they want one time and if he does not give it he should be shot.
2006-10-19 15:59:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely...and without hesitation
2006-10-19 16:02:10 · answer #10 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋