Is torture in interrogation a good way to retrieve information on terrorists?

Question

doing a debate for school and seeking info on torture

Answer 1

NOT A GOOD INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE ACCORDING TO JOHN MC CAIN....BUT IT MUST BE A DAMN GOOD FEELING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.

Answer 2

I'm old enough to remember when we talked about the atrocities committed by the Nazies, the KGB, Iranian Secret Police under the Shah. The Chinese, and the tortures committed by Saddam Hussain. Now the USofA has elevated itself to join in that club. Kimberly has given you the best answer and there are some other good ones also. As for my answer, I pray to God I will live to see the USA rejoin the civilized world.Torture is never justified in a civilized society. You will read some sick entries about revenge. Ignore them , for instance at Guantanimo Torture Camp run by the US, its a known fact that less than 20% of the prisoners had anything to do with terrorism. Good Luck on your debate.

Answer 3

Yes it is very good. Will it give false information. Of course it will, but any interrogation will. Over all it will give good valuable information. Some might give false information, but more than not you will get good valuable information fast. Put it this way, we need vital information because it is time sensitive. Do we be nice and kindly ask for the information which could takes weeks and by that time the information may be out of date and more troops lives lost or do we use torture and hopefully get the information sooner and saves lives. As far as I am concerned these people tried to kill American or or allies, they put them self in these positions.
But since it is a report for school I would write something that is against torture to get a better grade. Most teachers tend to be liberals and against most interrogation. If you tell them what they want to hear, you will get a better grade. Stinks it works that way, but it does.

Answer 4

Intelligence gathering is information gathering. This information must then be confirmed by other data and the information proved wrong discarded. Torture is just a very swift method of extracting information from people. Present governments are not interested in the people and the US used to be an exception to that reality applied mainly by the defunct USSR, African regimes, and Latin American military governments. Today, the US has legitimized the broad use of torture, protected torturers, left subjects of torture in total lack of legal and human rights protection. Nevertheless, as methods go, torture still proves to be the most expedite way to extract information. What is happening today is wrong and shamefull, history will leave its mark and judgement. To have the US today the leader in optimizing torture and depriving people of the basic rights after having been so long the flag bearer of the free world, leaves me thinking this is a sad world on which we live today.

Answer 5

It worked real well back during the witch trials and the inquisitions. Look how many other witches were found out from every witch that had her shin bones crushed or was dunked repeatedly it to cold water. It is the Christian way to ask questions. and we are a Christian nation. Don't you think that is how Jesus would have asked had he needed answers?

Stop and think. No. I only can't believe how many cold crass answers you have gotten to this question. Is that what our generation of this nation are to be remembered for? (And we will) A nation in regression. The Geneva Convention was not set up to find loophole on who you could and couldn't torture, it was set up to protect basic human rights. Freedom from torture has to be one of the most basic fundamentals of human rights. You can't just make someone less then human because they are a certain race or are suspected of a certain crime. Most people would admit to anything they were told to under torture as was proved in the European and New England witch trials.

Answer 6

The dirty little truth about torture is that it works. However, for it to work the interviewee must be made to know that the interviewer already has answers to some of the questions about to be asked. Otherwise the interviewee will say anything to avoid any unpleasantness, and the interviewer, having no checklist, will be obliged to accept all answers as true. It would be a wasted session. When the interviewee knows some questions are "testers" he will either answer truthfully or not at all. The procedure then is to communicate that "I am going to pop you for refusing to answer, and I am really going to whump you for a wrong answer". This is somewhat simplified, but I think you get the idea. There are other methods of interrogation which are more effective but take more time. The above method of threatened torture is used when time is of the essence. Hope this helps.

Answer 7

torture can go one of two ways; it can either break somebody right away or simply strengthen the receivers will not to bend.
However - and this is important, when you talk about torture are you talking about what hollywood has portrayed on the screen - or are you talking about what is actually done in the field?
Many "techniques" used today are the very same that are used in training soldiers that attend special schools such as Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion. This is a school that teaches US servicemen and women with high value target liability, how to handle themselves if they are captured by the enemy.
When used in real world scenarios, these same tactics can have an effect on an unsuspecting victim.
Please try to get more information for your class than simply relying on what you may "think" torture is.

Answer 8

Well, an ABC reporter, who's name escapes me, said that the way officials discovered the plane plot with the liquid explosives back in August was through "water boarding." Now, some US officials have said that "water boarding" isn't torture and that even recruits are water boarded in training. Still, I've see depictions of the Gestapo using it in movies, and it pretty much looks like a form of torture, even though they aren't pulling out fingernails. Nonetheless, if terrorists refuse to talk, we need to do something that get them to tell us what they know. Hundreds of people were saved from a horrible death last August because a terrorist was tortured. I'd rather have them tortured then to lose those lives.

Let me point out that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions only protect legitimate, uniformed soldiers from armies of countries. (Look up the Conventions and have that part ready when the opposition challenges you with the Geneva Conventions.You could probably find out the name of the ABC reporter if you go to their website, too.) Good luck in the debate.

Answer 9

Torture, or as Bush calls it using the multi-layered euphemistic pun his writers came up with "alternative interrogation" is not a source of reliable information, and is never justified or civilized.

The reason the information is unreliable is that the victims will say what they believe the sadist performing the torture wants them to, true or false.

There is one and only one reason to condone, order or perform torture, and that is severe mental illness.

Answer 10

1) Torture is against the Geneva Convention.
2) There is no way to ensure you would get an honest response.
3) Torture begets torture. If we start torturing suspected terrorists then we would not be justified in being upset when our own soldiers are tortured.
4) Where would it actually stop? Can we be indignant when our soldiers are being decapitated on camera? Can't one claim that that is the ultimate torture? If torture is justified to get information, then wouldn't there be a justified punishment for not giving up information?

Answer 11

Depends on the meaning of "good"...

If I am allowed to assume that the interrogators are professionals, intelligent, compassionate and understand the concept of proportionality then:

Is it effective way to get information? - Yes
Is the information always reliable? - No
Can the info be used to corroborate other info? - Yes

Is it uncomfortable? - Yes
Is it permanent? - No, ignoring PTSD

Have I been subject to it? - As defined by the liberal elite, yes
Did I have permanent injury? - No
Did I have PTSD? - No and neither do most of the people who claim it as a defense.
Did I have useful info? - Yes
Did I give up useful info? - I don't think so, but if I did, I saw no negative result.