Are You In Favour Of Using Torture For Terror Suspects???

Question

I am, if it means that thousands of lives can potentially be saved.

Answer 1

No, because:

A) Its been shown that torture does not provide worthwhile information

B) Using torture would go so against the American standards of decency that we would no longer be the great nation that we are

Answer 2

No. Because tortuing a person will not necessarily produce the results one is hoping achieve. As an example, if I wanted you to admit to being a terrorist, if I tortured you badly enough and long enough chances are you would tell me what I wanted to hear just to get me to stop torturing you.

History is full of examples of people that were tortured and confessed to crimes they never commited. Agimet of Geneva was a Jewish merchant accused of posing the wells around Geneva, which was believed to have caused the plauge. As we know for history, the plauge was caused by rats on merchant ships. Johannus Junis, was tortured and confessed to admit he was a witch during the witch craze (1450-1550 Europe), although that wasn't the case.

Another reason I would be against torture is you can torture someone all you want, but if they don't want to divulge information and die as a result, what have you accomplished, the captors still haven't got the information they wanted.

Lastly, there are the myriad of human rights issues and violations that are involved too. I hate terrorists to, but torturing someone will more than likely do more harm than good.

Answer 3

Absolutely not.

For example, the Guildford Four were tortured and forced to sign false confessions - then imprisoned for over 15 years until their conviction was overturned. Finally PM Tony Blair had to apologise.

And the British army and RUC routinely used torture on anyone they 'suspected' of fighting to get the Brits out of the six. This only made the resistance stronger and put more of a blot, if that is possible, on the two aforementioned organisations.

Answer 4

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975.
look it up and try to understand!
if you want to speak about saving lives thousands or millions of them i dont think that torture is the answer.
oh and is not only the so called terrorists that are a threat to open your society...open your eyes and ears!

Answer 5

It really does not matter if we are in favour of it or not. IT HAPPENS. Representatives of ALL countries do it from America to Zambia.
However, the usefulness of the information obtained is relative to the person being tested. Rather like body language, if one is skilled in the knowledge like Tony Blair, then it can be used to your advantage rather than disadvantage, ie you can be conditioned to lie under torture!
Oh yes, and you can get your body language to lie and indicate you are telling the truth as well!!!!

Answer 6

I am in favour of using torture for Hindu suspects.

I am, if it means that thousands of "untouchable lives" can potentially be saved.

So called "higher caste"Hindus kill many other "untouchable Hindus". Do you have the guts to comment on this.

And you think I am scared of the threatening mail you send me. Take this you dumbas*. If I did not want to hear from idiots like you I would have not allowed emails.

Read "About me" and my other answers. I have nothing to loose, my account is new I have no intention of retaining it.

Answer 7

This would lower our standards of decency to a point where the damage would be superior

Answer 8

yes, ofcourse
we have to sacrifice a few to save many.
human rights donot apply to them. they are animals.


untouchibility was a centuary ago
and that dog "rojer" ought to know that before he opens his bloody mouth.

Answer 9

as long as they get information to save the rest of the world yes, all the best

Answer 10

yes and after dump the bodies on the street as a warning to other's seems to work elsewhere..