give the exact location or when it was going to detonate, and torture was used to get the answer to save millions, would you still be opposed to torture in all situations?
2007-10-11 13:22:44 · 13 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Jose..in the question, torture was used and the terrorist gave up the accurate information...so yes, the torturer believed the terrorist.
2007-10-11 13:30:35 · update #1
shhhhh itsyourworld...I'm being persecuted...two reports for extremely inane answers and question...so I'm hiding out under this name for a bit.
2007-10-11 13:34:41 · update #2
I'd email ya copies...it's pure BS. I know it's not a liberal/conservative thing, I think weenies on both sides do that stuff. Frankly, there should be NO reporting when it comes to answers and questions in the politics section.
2007-10-11 13:39:56 · update #3
No. I don't think so. This is one person, not millions, as you said. And he's terrible after all. Let's see. Would you rather kiill millions or torture 1?
2007-10-11 13:31:17 · answer #1 · answered by Starstruck 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Interesting debate, isn't it? Especially when you have Keyboard Kommandoes who think they can resist torture. Done properly, a victim will tell you ever little thing he's ever tried, including stealing from the cookie jar when he was 4. He'll open up his mind so that you can read whatever you want in it. The problem is, the victim will also be utterly useless as a human being after that.
As for the ethics, it's also itneresting to note that everyone agrees that there is a point where necessity outweighs ethics. Where they DISagree is just exactly what point it is.
One life for millions? One life for thousands? One life for another? How about one life for jaywalking?
2007-10-11 13:50:48 · answer #2 · answered by Marc X 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm with Jim. I'm against torture unless it's in extreme situations like the one presented in your question.
Anyone else notice that Right=Corrects avatar is exactly like Vanilla Trolls? Interesting, isn't it?
VT I KNEW it was YOU! If your answers or questions weren't really inane rantings or inappropriate, then I'm sorry to hear they were removed. People who flag answers or questions just because they dislike them are losers, for lack of a better term.
2007-10-11 13:33:07 · answer #3 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the project with torture is, to stop being tortured you may talk. in case you tell fake suggestion you nonetheless have been given them to stop torturing you, so all you may do is say something. For the torturer, you will proceed to torture till you have faith them, so as that they're going to easily inform you memories till you assert what they decide to have faith. you in addition to could have the project, at the instant we are scuffling with "terrorist" which will probable kill you anyhow, yet in 10 years it truly is Cuba, or Argentina, or perhaps Germany or Canada, you under no circumstances know, that doesn't unavoidably be torturing squaddies, yet as quickly as we've a attractiveness that we are going to torture, then in spite of enemy we are up against is going to torture our squaddies. as quickly as we are saying we don't shop on with the Geneva convention, it's going to be impossible to coach returned.
2016-10-22 02:18:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Call in Jack Bauer
He'd know what to do
(I'm against torture unless its an extreme situation, that would be one of them.)
Peace
Jim
.
2007-10-11 13:29:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
That's a sweet little hypothetical that has been kicked around for a number of years. When that scenario happens, let us know.
You suggest a PROVEN terrorist, who is just inconceivably stupid
Us normal people will still advocate against torturing terrorist SUSPECTS (you should look up the definition of "suspect" when you get a chance).
KNOWN terrorists should be tortured, maimed, and killed in gruesome, unsavory fashions.
SUSPECTS, however . . .
2007-10-11 13:38:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
well... the only problem is... most seem to believe torture isn't effective...
if you do it very much... they will tell you whatever you "want to hear," if it's the truth or not...
so do you spend man hours doing something that may not yield any information...
or do you spend those man hours trying to figure it out using investigative methods?
is this an actual example? because from what I understand... the world doesn't work the way it does in your question...
2007-10-11 13:33:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Beating someone won't compel them to tell the truth. From the GESTAPO, to the NKVD, SAVAK, the DINA, to the Spanish Inquiition or Eglish Star Chambers...Its never been proven satisfactorily that anything extracted under duress has any truth to it. All you will get is signed cofessions or admissions to make it stop - but thanks for the hypotheticals.
2007-10-11 14:00:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
absolutely not we should give him a pet bunny and send him back to his own country in a luxury jet and every american should be required to either kiss his feet or give him $71. we should also ask him if there were any way he could come back and plant more bombs and offer our children up for him to strap the bombs to. after all, terrorists should are people and have rights just like everyone else, right?
2007-10-11 13:31:12 · answer #9 · answered by f0876and1_2 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No...probably not. We may all be tested at some point in our lives...and the temptation to commit great evil will always be there. From my vantage point...it is the dark soul that embraces torture to discover truth.
2007-10-11 13:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋