A purely hypothetical question involving torture and terror...?

Question

I'm trying to imply that anyone is guilty or innocent of such actions, but...

Imagine that we tortured (not water-boarding, but stuff like bamboo shoots under the finger nails, etc.) 999 innocent Muslims at Guantanamo, but we also tortured one that knew about an impending terrorist plot on the U.S. Now, suppose this plot would have killed 100 Americans at an amusement park in Texas.

Would the use of torture have been justified? What if it had been 1,000 Americans? 10,000? 100,000?

I forgot to say that the one that did know of the plot told the interrogators.

And please explain why.

Answer 1

No, that doesn't justify anything. Racial and/or cultural profiling of any kind can never be compared to a questionable means bringing about a beneficial end. And neither can torture. Americans like to pretend that they have embraced 'racial tolerance'. The fact that they are comfortable with the term racial tolerance just proves that they are just as racist prejudice and unjust as they ever were, what type of person who is oppressed by a tyrannical empire of which they are part for hundreds of years would want to hear some crap like "now we're tolerating your kind in our country, so it's all good right?" The fact that we are torturing the Muslim community both publicly and privately is not justifiable just because the nations we're currently pillaging are populated by mostly Muslim people. That doesn't make it right it doesn't make it just, and there is no reason for it! But stupid Americans need to feel justified in their foolhardy ways and since they are afraid of change, and were born and created as a racial superstructure, they'll never really feel guilt or remorse for the atrocities they commit while they pretend that they are battling the atrocities they profited from and aided in some third world nation they couldn't and wouldn't give 3 sh*ts from a flying rat's @ss about.

Answer 2

It's a false proposal. We would never have gotten to the real terrorist.

In torturing the 999 before him/her, it would have taken a long time because the innocents wouldn't have any information to give, and it would take a long time to finally blurt out something the iterrogators wanted to hear.

Then, acting on this information, our intelligence and law enforcement people would have been chasing at LEAST 999 dead ends, assuming they only told one thing each.

By time the real one would have been tortured, the people in the park would have been dead and buried for years.

An example - a prominent al Qaeda person repeatedly told FBI interrogators that there was no operational link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They had built a rapport with him and he was speaking freely.

Then the CIA took him away, determined to find the "truth". Under torture he confessed to an operational link (later recanted after being released), and eventually, when asked by the FBI why he said things that weren't true, he said "I had to do something to make them stop."

It was a crucial, but false piece of the case for war in Iraq, and now those responsible wring their hands and say "How could we have known?" The answer is by using reliable, accepted methods. Not only did we get bad info, cause needless deaths and such, but our methods/means also have made us many more enemies for generations to come than we have rooted out.

Interrogation experts agree that torture doesn't work because it yields so much unreliable information. In order for torture to reliably work, you have to know enough about what's going on that you probably don't need to torture.

The British concluded, after decades of torturing IRA members, that it was a poor way to get good information.

False premise. If we torture in the name of freedom and democracy, what makes us different from the animals and savages we claim to be morally superior to?

Answer 3

I'm going to say no. Because by torturing 1,000, it seems like the gov't would be torturing Muslims at random, rather than torturing because they had good reason to believe they the Muslim actually knew about any terrorist plots.

Answer 4

I have to agree that to torture 1,000 random Muslims is not the way to get the answers we need. But then I don't agree with torture as a means to any end. There are always other ways to get your answers without resorting to violence.

Answer 5

It has not something to do with the greater suitable. a pal of mine has a Triple nipple, the do not seem or function like another 2. they are tiny, they appear as if a mole with an areola. in some unspecified time interior the destiny interior the form of a human fetus all of us have 6. 4 are reabsorbed by using the physique on the same time as 2 proceed to advance...as quickly as in awhile between the 4 does not reabsorb, whether it does not proceed to advance.

Answer 6

No. Torture is never justified. Never. America should be better than that. There are other ways to gather information in this day and age.

Answer 7

No. If we torture prisoners then America is no better than the terrorists themselves. Americans have a higher standard to uphold.

Answer 8

No because those remaining 998 innocent people who have been tortured are going to go out and recruit recruit recruit. Their lives will be filled with hate and consumed with the desire to destroy our country and the people in it.

Answer 9

I don't believe it would be justified.

If a culture condones that kind o behaviour under any context, do they deserve the life they are trying to preserve? I think we need to re-examine who the terrorists are, in that case.

Violence obviously breeds violence.

Answer 10

I wouldn't want that done in my name, to protect me. That's not the kind of people we're supposed to be.