What is your opinion on using torture as a method for attaining information from terrorists?

Answer 1

Let me propose a very realistic hypothetical and then let those who argue against using non-conventional methods of interrogation argue the humanity of the options.

We have caught a terrorist group with a nuclear device, say a 10 kiloton briefcase device, we have it, we are safe from this one but we know factually that there is another group with the same device in the USA, and they are intending on detonating it in 48 hours. The people we have caught, know who the others are, they know where the bomb is to be detonated and have to this point refused to tell us, instead screaming at interrogators that there is nothing we can do to stop it.

a) do we just all jump on a plane and say leave LA or NYC
b) do nothing and wait for hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans to die horrible deaths
c) extract ALL of the information the captive combatants have.

which is the moral thing to do?
if your family is in harms way, will you change your mind?

This scenario is exactly why the terrorists are relying on the leftists to help them carry out their genocide of the American public. This scenario is not a wild idea, it is EXACTLY what the terrorists intend to do, nuke the USA. To deny that is simple irrational.

So, what is the moral thing to do, extract the information to save hundreds of thousands of innocent people, or read the guys their Miranda rights and put them in a jail cell with their computers and internet connections.

There is no equivalency in this in my mind, we must save our people even if this one person is destroyed in the process.

and one last question, where does it say in the Constitution that our God given rights apply to people not citizens of the United States. To imply that they have the same rights in this country is just wrong thinking.

Answer 2

Very rough question. There's argument for and against the use of torture during interrogation procedure that are all valid to one degree or another. I tend to agree most with the moderates that have answered. Exhaust all possibilities, including chemical inducements (truth serums) before using inhumane methods of questioning. And even then use them only if massive amounts of lives depend on the answer and the prisoner is not protected under the Geneva Convention. Torture should be used only under very limited, extremely well deliberate circumstances and the responses obtained that way careful scrutinized since there is a very good chance of them being lies given to make the torture stop.

Answer 3

Definition:
Torture is defined under international law as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

How reliable is it?
One well documented effect of torture is that with rare exceptions people will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn.

The use of torture has been criticized not only on humanitarian and moral grounds, but on the grounds that evidence extracted by torture can be unreliable and that the use of torture corrupts institutions which tolerate it.

Answer 4

We are a nation of laws. We already have laws that proscribe how officials should act. If we ignore the laws when it's convenient, then we are hypocrites, or worse.

If we need a new law to cover very exceptional circumstances, then we should consider enacting such a law including proper judicial safeguards.

Without proper standards, we leave it up to whatever authority is involved to decide on its own when, how, or if, to torture someone. This might be a military authority, a federal, a state, or a local law enforcement entity.

If you start handing over your rights and constitutional protections over to others, assuming they will always target only the bad guys, you repeat the mistake the Germans made. By the time the average German figured this out - it was too late.

Answer 5

It goes against the Geneva Convention and, just as important, torture does not work.

People will say anything under torture if they think that's what you want to hear.

Also, if used by a democracy, torture undermines democracy and can be used as a rallying point and recruiting tool by the enemies of said democracy.

Since the torture of Abu Ghraib was revealed, Al Qeda has used it to prove that the U.S. is a nation that relies on torture and therefore Al Qeda feels even freer to torture American prisoners.

Answer 6

It has been proven by more that one branch of service (mine, Army) that it dosen't actually work all that effectively and isn't "ordered" to be used. What I would really like to know is why in every war over the last 50 years we always focus on our use of torture and never on the people whom are actually using it. My uncle Ben was tortured in Vietnam for 3 years so badly that he still to this day cannot live in doors like a normal person.

Answer 7

As a general rule of thumb, I say avoid it.

But the constitution is not suicide pact. Lincoln in the coarse of his presidency did a lot of things that would be deemed unconstitutional; but his logic was that in order to maintain the Republic it was 'proper and necessary'.

Most historians side with him...

So given there are reputable national threats e.g nucluer, chemical, dirty bomb, etc....I would say it's our government obligation to get that information. If we're dealing with an individual whom likely doesn't represent a huge threat, I would say don't do that....but there has to be legit level where people aren't catered to at the cost of the Republic.

It's idealism to say 'never', and it's harsh to say whenever. I'd say the rule of thumb is...is the Republic in big danger?...if yes, then deeply consider....if not, then be prudent. It should be a presidential chose.

Answer 8

It's illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, we have a choice.

We can violate the person's constitutional rights to get the information (which is usually not reliable anyway, but let's ignore that). But if we do violate the person's constitutional rights to get the information, we're not allowed to prosecute them.

Or we can follow the laws, not use illegal methods to gain info, but we get to prosecute them for crimes they've committed.

That's the way the legal system works. If the govt breaks the law, it loses the ability to prosecute others who have broken the law. If the govt follows the law, then they can prosecute.

So, in each case, it becomes question of what is more important with respect to that prisoner -- getting information from them using torture if necessary, or prosecuting them for the crimes they committed. We cannot legally do both.

Answer 9

Well since most terrorists are NOT US CITIZENS and therefore DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I say do what it takes. Our prisoners are routinely tortured then murdered regardless of the rule of law. These TERRORISTS do not abide by any law or rules of engagement--but we're suppose to? Screw the "PC" crowd. Those sons of Satan need to be taken out--I believe it does save INNOCENT lives. And after the torturing of said terrorists (who'd slit your throat) ...........one bullet between the eyes.

Answer 10

It is what they expect because it is what they do. What goes around should come around. I resent having to support club GITMO. A bullet behind the ear would much more economical. Even better shave their bellies smooth as a baby girls and send them home. An altered male can not enter heaven according to the Koran.