Is torture morally acceptable if it prevents a terror attack?

Question

Personally, I say that it is not, for that seems to have two problems - that of the slippery slope and that of sinking to the terrorist's level. However, I must ask myself, must we sink to their level to save lives? If we do, is it worth it to lose our dignity?

What do you think?
What about the suspension of habeas corpus for non-citizens (just assuming non-citizens for argument's sake)?

Alex - yes they were convicted, but they were the only ones caught and put in the public eye. What about the extraordinary renditions to Egypt?

Answer 1

There is a Roman adage that says,"During war all laws are silent." The Romans are the ones that taught the west the concept of total war. The conceptive is deceptively simple. Destroy your enemies ability to make war through ANY MEANS NECESSARY. As much as we love to be morally upright and humane that won't exactly insure our personal survival. Survival outweighs all moral considerations. After all, we firebombed Japanese and German cities to kill as many civilians as possible to make sure they weren't able to create any weapons munitions for the enemy. We destroyed water supplied and made people die of dehydration. If torture, genocide, and delibrate acts of cruelty keeps me and my family alive then I can live with myself. Why? Because I can live!

Answer 2

Torture is neither morally or legally acceptable. Not only that, when we torture, we put our troops at danger of being tortured. If we are known as a country that is above torture, we stand a chance of others remembering that when one of our troops is captured. Americans like to think that we are better than everyone and that America is better than any other country. If we want to think that way, we HAVE to act that way.

I am also against the suspension of habeas corpus. I think it sets a very dangerous precedence. Even IF it is not being used against American citizens at this point, the possibility is scary. As for the terrorists, if they are guilty, charge them and sentence them and get it over with.

Answer 3

You are not a conservative, here is why:

Democrats have openly stated that they will sacrifice american lives for dignity, the same thing that you are implying

While, it does make sense of what you are saying, the torture implimented is not like the torture US POW's in Vietnam experienced, in which they would bleed to death from blood loss due to the removal of their genitals

Dignity can always be won back. How is letting people die and such could be prevented by just implimenting non-life threatening methods onto people who want to kill others, keeping dignity? As soon as you can explain that to me, I may change my opinion

habeas corpus for non-citizens, I do not really like, but hey, I don't like a lot of things, and this is not a top priority for me

Answer 4

many points on this but here are the basics. while fighting a war outside of the US to give the combatants habeas corpus is not possible. you have to bring in the arresting military person and probably their superiors to show why the were detained. It cant work that way. Are their going to be people that may not be as important as others yea, probably but to let them go and send them back to the front lines to kill or hurt more of our men and women is not the right answer either. Military law and US law are different for just this reason. You have to side with the US military in any situation to protect our men and women.

In the terrorist training book it says for them at anytime you are captured yell torture. This gets the, what Lenin called, Usefull idiots on your side. They know our people are weak and to play on that at any cost will erode us internally.

These combatants are willing to kill themselves for their cause, do you really think talking to them is going to do any good? Death is not a fear but the attacking of their religion will work. they hold that more dear than their life. Now are there going to be people that take it too far? ofcourse anytime you put a young man or woman in that kind of situation that war does it can take over rational thinking. but we do our best to curb it when we can.

Answer 5

Torture in the sense of brutal, merciless torture (which America does not condone) does not help anything, as people give unreliable testimoney and witness simply to make it stop

Harsher sentences, including lights being left on for a long time, defemation of the Koran, loud music and prolonged interrogations can serve to help gather information though, and these methods are implimented.

Keep in mind that those involved at Abu Graub (however the hell you spell it) were convicted, so America does not condone those sorts of acts

Answer 6

Good point, its like is it okay to kill one child if it saves the lives of 5 children?

We can't stoop to the level of that which we are fighting.
Suspending habeas corpus for non citizens may sound good, but who is to say they won't do that to citizens also? Do you really put that much faith in your government?

Answer 7

According to the Military Commission Act of 2006 that Son of Bush, George, signed, it is. Even though it does not condone the use of torture but it nevertheless sanctions it.

Answer 8

If somebody is waiting to die for their reason, why might you think of they might show techniques decrease than torture? – shahid is shahid. If one participant were "caught" that would could desire to point an intelligence enterprise knew that an action grew to become into planned – it may well be greater effective to apply that intelligence – terrorist instruments paintings on a cellular shape so the intelligence won with the aid of torture would not inevitably result interior the prevention of the action, the two an intelligence operation would not inevitably bring about prevention. To torture one guy or woman to save 3,000 could look morally justifiable – yet what if that one guy or woman grew to become into an harmless might that justify torture of yet another, and yet another, and yet another till all contributors of a particular ethnicity or faith have been tortured? you may respond "yet they weren't harmless" it is large in hindsight yet not interior the actual international the place time strikes in one direction in uncomplicated terms. in case you (and why not you – somebody has to do it) tortured yet another man or woman, no count if on your very own or your united states's earnings, and that torture grew to grow to be well-known what might the family and pals of that guy or woman think of, might it harden their choose for, might they be morally justified in torturing you or a member of your loved ones – in spite of what techniques that your torture produced or not. in case you at the instant are not arranged to torture somebody are you waiting to reserve somebody else to torture? look on the worldwide flak us of a of united statesa. has rightly taken over Guantanamo, water-boarding and for outstanding renditions – and those are positioned up-9/11, how plenty help do you think of terrorist companies garnered consequently of those? btw you ought to look further into the known jobs and provisions of signatories of the Geneva convention(s).

Answer 9

I say the only way to win this war is to do to them even worse things than they do. You need to make war so bad that they do not want to come back for more. Kill them all and let God sort them out. You save lives in the long run.

Answer 10

Define torture. If "water boarding" is as bad as it gets.I say whatever. It's not like they will give information if we just ask nicely.Information that may literally save thousands of lives.I may be splitting hairs but as long as we are not shoving bamboo splinters under fingernails I think a MODERATE amount of coercion is unfortunately necessary.