Should Torture (in fact be) allowed under certin circumstances?

Question

I am pretty sure most of you all watched Hillary Clinton get drawn into that question...but I was curious to know how other people feel should torture be allowed under certin circumstances?......If a imminent terrorist attack was about to happen and we had the 1 head guy in custody and he knew where the attack was taking place and what the attack method was going to be...lets say worst case scenario it was a...Biological Dirty bomb full of smallpoxs...,.don't we have a moral obligation to beat the hell out of the guy until he talks....

Answer 1

The thing about torture is...


Someone under torture, unless they're the freakin' SAS will tell you what you want to hear, will do anything you want them to do if it will make the suffering stop. Some will last longer than others, but all will snap.

It's human nature. That's why special forces have to undergo serious training on deprogramming themselves from doing so. You'll also find that radicalists are so commited/programmed to their cause that they would rather die and suffer than ever give in.

Remember most hard-line modern "terrorists" (the head guy as you so oversimply put it) are martyrs who would gladly endure the death and suffering because staying true to their cause will take them to paradise in the next life.

And that's the other problem with torture... most often the torturer goes in with a premeditated answer they want out of people. It's biased questioning. You won't stop torturing until you get the answer you want to hear, genuine or not.

It's easy to moralise using a easist-case scenario. Life doesn't work that way. It isn't that clear-cut.

Answer 2

Never.

In the case you describe, since the attack is imminent, he knows that it's imminent, and so would either hold out or lie.

So it not only is wrong, but it doesn't work.

In fact, interrogation experts agree that you don't get accurate information.

Besides, most of the people tortured are innocent or ignorant of what they're being asked about.

Most of the Iraqi the U.S. has tortured were later released (after months of being tortured), because they weren't terrorists and didn't have any information about terrorists.

You can't untorture or unrape someone.

So, why were we doing it?

It's an act of terror. It says, in effect "We're heartless and brutal, and there's nothing so evil we won't do it, therefore, fear us."

The people who support torture try to convince others that they're only torturing the guilty, and only to get information.

But they are lying.

As a different kind of example, consider putting someone's holy book into their used chamber pot. (This is psychological abuse, not strictly torture, but is prohibited, and just wrong.)

Do you really think that someone is going to want to talk to you after you're done that?

No, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to show that we have no conscience.

So, not only is torture WRONG, but it's counter-productive.

The way to flip terrorists is to appeal to their conscience and their religion, not tell them you hate them for their religion.

Yes, conscience. They've been persuaded that what they're doing is for a greater good. People like that can be turned, and then they'll WANT to tell you everything they know.

We have a moral obligation, at least, to not BE terrorists.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. There are plenty of psychological methods to extract this information in a short amount of time. You are assuming that the torturers know for sure that the detainee has the information. There is also truth serums,food and sleep deprivation and other methods that would not be considered torture. Sometimes just the opposite such as befriending the person can have positive effects. If you torture someone they may lie just to get you to quit. Then you might be worse off than when you started. Better to startt a prayer network. If we are a righteous nation, then God will fight in our defense.

Answer 4

This sounds like its from a episode from 24 on the television. I think that we have the obligation to torture who ever they need to get the answer. Just think if we are torturing 1 guy it is saving the whole area in which the bomb will go off in. So yes I think it is a good idea....

Answer 5

No and just think back to soldiers that occupied Vietnam and how they were treated but what was done to them in the name of war and was very wrong.
See in war there is always two sides so do you think it is OK torture our enemy and then jump up and down in disgust when the same thing happens to our soldiers.

Answer 6

I think it depends on what you consider a torture, and how far you take it. Ancient ways of torture i think would be just. If you wanted a way to make someone feel for what they did, i think modern torture devices should be implemented. But like i said it depends on your mind. If you see that making someone suffer for something bad is bad, then of course your gonna say no. But if you see it as a just and fair punishment, then the case changes to the opposite, do whatever it takes to make them suffer an equal fate. Personally i think that only the worst crimes should be punishable by torture. Multiple murder, child murder, and terrorism are crimes which i think would be accepted as punishable by torture.

Answer 7

That is not what the torture thing is about. Torture would obviously be used in that situation regardless of the law.

Answer 8

Torture is not acceptable is any case. NO.

Answer 9

No country has ever needed permission, or asked to torture.
Why this country wants it acceptable, and agreed to makes no sense, unless they are going to us it on us.

Answer 10

Yes it should and I believe the prisoners that have been deserved it.