Is torturing terrorists to give information ethical?

Question

During the republican debates the candidates were asked what they would do if a group of terrorists were captured, if they would endorse torturing them to get more infomation. Is this ethical? I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I'm a registered independent, and I couldn't be in any more support of torturing these terrorists. Although it sounds awful, the pain of these men is bad, but what about the long term? What about the war the bombings would inevitably lead to? What about the mother's getting notified their son was just killed in the war? I say the emotional torture, and anguish of loosing a loved one is far worse than any physical pain anyone can give me.

Answer 1

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do in order to save lives. I don't like torturing but sometimes it works. It is unethical and ILLEGAL a violation of International laws. The bad thing about it is that if one of our soldiers is ever captured he might end up with the same fate.

Answer 2

I don't think the question is whether it's ethical, but whether we're prepared as a country to torture people who haven't been convicted.

I like what McCain said about this issue. Firstly, he thinks the practice makes the United States look much worse than the terrorists even though the terrorists are clearly much worse. People expect more out of the US than they do a bunch of extremists. Secondly, we endanger our own citizens and soldiers. If we practice torture, then we lose some bargaining chips when other countries / groups take Americans hostage.

But I completely sympathize with the argument that there should be torture. After all, if we choose not to torture a terrorist and we end up getting nuked, that wouldn't be good.

So, I don't know what I want to do exactly. I'd say that if you know a person is a terrorist, it's probably ethical, but it might be dangerous to our freedoms long-term to torture people who haven't gone through some judicial process.

Answer 3

Torture is illegal under the Geneva Convention which Bush et al have so conveniently circumvented. To inflict pain on another human for any reason is unjust and immoral and there is never any reason to justify it...The communists used to say the "end justifies the means"...not sure where they got the quote but it is never justifiable to inflict pain on anyone despite the information they MAY possess..what if it is a man who has nothing to give, should we continue to inflict pain because we have no idea he has no information..Don't you question that there are Americans out there who are prepared to put a mans testicles in a vice to get information; do you realize that these creatures will walk among us someday as equals under God...Many times in North America there have been people wrongly convicted because they succumbed to mental torture by the police just to get a conviction....any human being with any intelligence and a moral code would and could never justify torture...but hey Rumsfeld did and Americans better hope he does not end up being extradited to a country willing to charge him...In Germany he has already been charged and may never be able to travel because of his giving consent to torture..so , enough said and I know the rabble will disagree and they have a right but it scares me I have to walk among them far more than being blown up on a subway.

Answer 4

If this person has already committed the crime of terrorism, lets say he walked into a school screaming support for a group and shoots children - then - by all means, have it at him with the thumb screws, but if a man is not guilty - or cannot be proven guilty without good cause - then he should be treated accordingly... It's a touchy subject - but we all know what the correct answers are - we just tend to forget when a higher ranking authority bludgeons it down upon us that they are "right" and you are "wrong"

Answer 5

the question is...what do the lawyers think the limits that should be that should be placed on getting information from a captured terrorist..you know it is only what they think that matters in this Country..the rest of us are too stupid to speak for ourselves..

of course they are going to lobby to set the bar at what the terrorist's appointed counsel will allow..

I feel that the terrorists here to kill are here ready to sacrifice their lives..have a different value on life than even the Lawyer..that they should not be afforded a single right..
if we find out where their family lives..we should do as Israel has done...destroy their home..

make the point that an eye for an eye has nothing to do with religious fervor..it's time for the left to respect our Military and shut up about any roadblock they can construe..
so we can respond in kind to these heretics.

Answer 6

It is not necessarily ethical, but is effective. Even with the torture or tough interrogation methods, the "tortured terrorist" would not experience near the pain or hurt that he has already put many others through. I feel it is just if they are a proven terrorist.

Answer 7

I agree. i dont care if we have to torture 100 muslim terrorists, if it saves American lives i dont care. I would do anything i could to protect Americans. Terrorists are uncomfortable in guantanamo bay? Oh ok, i bet the people IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS WERE NOT VERY COMPFORTABLE EITHER. So, the bleeding heart liberals can keep crying about how the terrorists have rights, it shows where their allegence truly lies.

Erik- you do realize the new york times is now far left? Why dont you actually go towards the source, THE CIA DIRECTOR said the techniques saved American lives. Stop believing all the liberals lies you sheep.

Answer 8

The question you reference that I heard was a little more leading then do you support torturing terrorists. I believe the claim was two security guards catch a terrorists who have planted a bomb at a shopping center, and they have 30 minutes to find out where. Do you support torturing them to find out? In fact I think they said would you back them up if they did because the assumption was they would torture the person to find out. Guiliani said yes and McCain said no. I say HELL yes.

Answer 9

You might enjoy reading this article from yesterday's NY Times about interrogation. The main thrust of the article is not on the ethical issue you raise, but rather about the fact that plenty of experts consider these extreme interrogation methods (approaching torture) as inefficient and ineffective. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30interrogate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(The NY Times site is free, but you'll need to register if you're not already registered.)

Also another article from today's Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html
(Again, more on the practicalities of torture in interrogation, less than on the ethics of it.)

Answer 10

Since when is terrorism ethical? Just the very idea of giving these terrorists the legal power to sue defies common sense. The idea of US attorneys actually defending these creeps makes my skin crawl. So to answer your question, I don't believe ethics comes into play.