This was a question asked of the democrats running for president. Their answer was that even if it meant the lives of thousands of Americans, they would not torture a terrorist for the information. They were worried about our "image" in foriegn Countries.
2007-10-05 15:32:09 · 18 answers · asked by smsmith500 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Read the question, we have captured a terrorist with knowledge of a bomb that will kill thousands of Americans. With those lives at stake would the use of torture be acceptable.
2007-10-05 15:42:47 · update #1
To the guy who said I watch too much 24, never saw it before. And i am shocked at some of the answers. Even with thousands of innocent American lives at stake, to the person who was worried about future wars. If we fight an enemy that holds to the geneva convention so will we. have you heard of any terrorist group that follows the rules of war as laid down in the convention? Neither have I.
2007-10-05 16:16:59 · update #2
Yeah, I know. They would prefer to see many innocent Americans killed to avoid making us look like monsters!! I say torture them; do whatever it takes to get information out of them. We would never do as they do in terrorist nations and they know it. They don't get but a slap on the wrist and there are many who want to release the prisoners even though they know they are out to kill and do harm to Americans. What is wrong with the people of this country?? World War II vets were younger and saw all kinds of atrocities of war and they didn't back down and coddle the enemy. They did what was necessary to fight the enemy and preserve our freedoms. There are too many liberals trying to make nice with people who want to kill us. Give me a break!! Turn this country over to Hillary and you will just see a bunch of liberals trying to pacify an enemy with nice words and it will never work. I hope that the people of this nation will take a serious look and educate themselves about what is taking place in enemy nations and what is taking place in the plans of Hillary, Obama and all the rest of these money spending, butt kissing liberals.
2007-10-05 15:41:47 · answer #1 · answered by turkeybrooknj 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
the problem with torture is, to stop being tortured you have to talk. If you tell false information you still got them to stop torturing you, so all you have to do is say something.
For the torturer, you will continue to torture until you believe them, so they will just tell you stories until you say what they want to believe.
You also have the issue, today we are fighting "terrorist" that will probably kill you anyways, but in 10 years it might be Cuba, or Argentina, or even Germany or Canada, you never know, that would not necessarily be torturing soldiers, but if we have a reputation that we are going to torture, then whatever enemy we are up against is going to torture our soldiers. Once we say we don't follow the Geneva convention, it will be impossible to turn back.
2007-10-05 15:55:30 · answer #2 · answered by Michael G 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That question was asked in a dem debate to Hilliary. She pretty much didn't answer the question SUPRISE! When she was told that Bill had said it was ok to do so in that circumstance all she said was "I'll have to talk to him". The ones above who are against torture in this instance will be the same ones asking why we didn't do everything possible to stop the bomb.
2007-10-05 16:19:57 · answer #3 · answered by bored 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
interesting debate, isn't it? relatively once you have Keyboard Kommandoes who think of they are able to withstand torture. performed right, a sufferer permit you to understand ever little component he's ever tried, which includes stealing from the cookie jar whilst he became 4. he will open up his innovations so as which you will study in spite of the fact which you like in it. the concern is, the sufferer is additionally completely ineffective as a man or woman after that. As for the ethics, it is likewise itneresting to observe that all and sundry is of a similar opinion that there is a factor the place necessity outweighs ethics. the place they DISagree is purely precisely what factor it relatively is. One life for hundreds of thousands? One life for 1000's? One life for yet another? How approximately one life for jaywalking?
2016-10-10 09:36:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it would be okay and it would be reckless to let people die because of one terrorists criminal activity.
These pansy people need to see what a bomb can do to people. If it meant saving their kid, you know they would agree with any means necessary.
Image? Terrorists are not associated with any one country and they don't have to live up to geneva convention, who cares what anyone thinks.
2007-10-05 15:48:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, torture is never ok. There is always a chance that you have an innocent person and in torture anyone would say anything to make the torture stop. The information would probably not be reliable. Its also extremely inhumane. Also image is the least thing we should worry about...
2007-10-05 15:39:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Thank you for your ticking time bomb scenario question.
I was going to ask that one the other day, but didn't get
around to it! The democrats will not support getting the info
to save lives at all costs. They will ,however, make sure the
terrorist gets culturally appropriate meals and can pray 5
times a day!
2007-10-05 21:41:58 · answer #7 · answered by realitycheck 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I know just how to torture him too, provided he is a Muslim jihadists or something similar. Threaten to force feed him pork chops cooked in a nice pan sauce made from white wine and milk.
2007-10-05 15:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not okay. It is never okay.
And even if you are looking at this strategically and not morally, the answer is still no. How reliable would you consider information gathered under torture to be? How accurate could it be, coming from a person who would say anything to make it stop?
2007-10-05 15:47:57 · answer #9 · answered by Shh_its me 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What will torture do to a Religious Extremist willing enough to plant a bomb in US soil??
What makes you think he would not lie just to escape the torture??
2007-10-05 15:46:44 · answer #10 · answered by Sam 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋