Should torture be used by Americans systematically in gaining information from prisoners?

Question

Any american who can justify treating a prisoner without humaine treatment is a narrow minded Nazi. Go lick your war leaders boot fascist pig.

Answer 1

torture shud not b used agenst a prisoner 4 wateva reazn, its an abusement of human rights.. interrogation is a gud way 2 gt info.. buh usin a sign of force also showz hw desperate the gvnmnt is in gettin d info... n theres also a possibility of torturin n innocent civilian prisoner

Answer 2

It depends on your definition of "torture." I think that's the first question. Is loud music and playing with the A/C and the lights - what happened at Gitmo - is that torture? Laughable. Were the butt pyramids and barking dogs and forcing prisoners to disrobe and taking their pictures in weird poses - what happened at Abu Ghraib - is that torture? I don't think so. It's stupid and I suspect it doesn't accomplish anything, but a war crime? No.

Is pretending to drown someone torture? Maybe. But it's nothing close to what's done to our people in about half the world, it's not remotely close to beheading and other acts that the terrorists we're fighting regularly commit, and it's obviously not in the same league as what the Nazis did - and that's what you're saying when you call it a "war crime" or "torture" - you're putting it in the same league as what the terrorists do or the Nazis did, and that's just not remotely accurate. And the notion that our 'waterboarding' is what eggs the terrorists on to behead is stupid - they behead because their holy book tells them to behead.

If you call pretending to drown someone torture (because anyone who calls butt pyramids torture does so only because they're a Bush hater not because they've given any objective thought to the question at all, and if you think playing with the lights and blasting Ozzy is torture you're just an idiot), the next question is is it worth it if it gets information. That depends on what the information is and whether the information is reliable. I don't know the answer to that. Neither do you. We have to go by what the people involved say - not because we should blindly trust the government but because we don't have, nor will we ever have, any better information. And they say it works.

So I would say that the big picture answer is we're not close to an ethical dilemma here. Dick Durbin would have you believe that we're just rounding up random Muslims and kicking the crap out of them and that's just not so.

Answer 3

Any information extracted by someone who is doing something to another in return for it (i.e. "tell me or I'll keep doing it") is unreliable - especially if the questioning is leading. If you said "are you behind 9/11" and every time they said no you carried on doing whatever it was you were doing then eventually they'd say yes to get them to stop - whether it's true or not. Torture therefore is very VERY good at getting people to blame, and not very good at getting the right people.

As to whether or not what the US does/did in gauntanamo is torture is subject to debate. Is being deprived of sleep for days on end torture? Perhaps not. However threatening prisoners with dogs, beating them, threatening them with electrocution (remember that iconic photograph?) like the US did in Abu Ghraib IS torture. It may not be as bad as what countries like China or even Israel do to their prisoners, but "everyone else is doing it" isn't an excuse for a 7 year old to stone a dog, nor is it an excuse for the US to say torture is morally defensible.

Answer 4

Absolutely!!

I hear all this dribble about the poor Guantanamo prisoners who are being "tortured" by getting all their religious material given to them, "culturally correct" food, free medical care, clean clothes, etc. How awful !

If you think about it, Americans captured by Muslims would be systematically starved, tortured for real, and executed.

So if it means getting intel out of a Muslim by torture, so be it. This is war. We didn't start it, but we should use all means to win it. Go at the little bastards, and quit pampering them.

Answer 5

No. We should just ask them nicely. If that doesn't work we could say "pretty please".
Sorry I couldn't help my self.
War is hell. that's not my quote. And in war we have to do things that we wouldn't normally do. This has always been the case and always will be. Just remember the guys doing the torturing have to live with themselves. If we didn't torture do you believe that the terrorists would stop? Highly unlikely.

Answer 6

I'm against torture because I was forced to participate in Abu Ghraib type behavior by my fraternity brothers. They made me sit on a block of ice in my boxers. It was brutal.

Everyone knows terrorists will spill the beans for coffee and cake, and warm hugs.

Answer 7

Depending on your definition of torure. If your a liberal, loud music is torture. If you are Conservative, it may not be.
........previous statement is an analogy to the left/right mentality and is not intended to represent real people, dead or alive and is not for broadcast use.

Not torture, but coersive measures that do not physically damage but do cause extreme uncomfort.

Answer 8

Yes. One of our biggest problems is we play by a different set of rules than the prisoners. Prisoners are enemies. As far as I'm concerned they have no rights.

Answer 9

no matter what they show in movies, torture is entirely unreliable. people will tell you anything to stop you from hurting them. Drug therapy perhaps might loosen peoples inhibitions and get them to tell you things they normally wouldnt but i doubt that the success rate would be very high

Answer 10

If it means saving the life of even one innocent American then I say yes!