And what about known terrorists.
Opinions and feedback.
2007-10-19 11:49:05 · 9 answers · asked by Roxanne 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Definitely! Information from terrorist is vitally important.
Terrorists are un-uniformed foreign enemy combatants and do not deserve to be given American citizen rights or even uniformed enemy soldier rights.
2007-10-19 11:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not acceptable under any circumstances to use torture.
While it may or may not be possible to obtain vital information using torture, it is not ethical and the far-reaching effects will be much more detrimental than the value of the (possibly flawed) information.
As a world leader, the United States has the obligation to be a role model in such issues as this. If this country stoops to the same tactics as the enemy, then how can it expect the world to have any respect for it.
It's a frustrating issue, and the gut reaction is to kill and hurt back. But, in order to preserve a decent civilisation, logical restraint must be exercised.
2007-10-19 12:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by Wyoming Rider 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let me see.
Alleged terrorist has a knowledge about nuclear device that may be was placed somewhere in the middle of your town, or maybe NYC, or maybe LA.
You have information that you have only one hour do disarmed it.
What would you do (multiple choice):
A. Do nothing by doing nothing.
B. Torture him/her to get as much as possible information and save 100, 1000, 10,000,000 lives.
If your answer is A - you are Liberal SOB
If you answer is B - you are vomiting crime against humanity.
And Dear coragryph:
Since when Constitution of USA gives Rights to foreign terrorists
2007-10-19 11:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Obama Happends 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have a friend, American, who was arrested on an innocent adventure on an island off of Vietnam after the war and before we had any sort of diplomatic relations at all.
He was tortured while in prison, although he had nothing really to say. They were convinced he was a spy but he was just a kid on a boat with a nutso captain on a treasure hunt.
Eventually after ~ 18 months he was released. What was the point? I am sure his captors were as convinced they wer as right as we would be, but that didn't make them so and it doesn't make us so.
2007-10-19 13:16:33 · answer #4 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, not even known terrorists. Studies have shown that the "evidence" gained from torture, even if it's acceptable as evidence in a court of law, produces bad intelligence. It also makes the rest of the world think that torture is acceptable, which puts our own soldiers in danger.
Personally, I now have two very dear friends on the front lines in Iraq, and I don't want them to be held as "enemy combatants" and tortured because we decided America was above the law.
BTW, it doesn't make it better if we torture them after a trial, either.
2007-10-19 11:53:49 · answer #5 · answered by Hillary 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I do not think it is acceptable to torture. Period. Besides, when torture is used the information is almost invariably lies.
As for the young guys who've answered in the positive, I'm looking for them to go join the Marines. Talk's cheap. Unless yo daddy is as big a dawg as DUHbya's daddy, you might get a different perspective when you lose track of your unit in "the fog of war".
The situational ethics that permits the likes of Duhbya to tout torture are the same situational ethics that terrorists use to justify their terrorism, the same that Mao, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero and Pontius Pilate used. If the US Government approves of torture (as recently published "secret documents indicate this administration does) then what is it that makes us better than any other despotic government?
2007-10-19 12:28:14 · answer #6 · answered by wordweevil 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's a toss-up (or trade-off) -- the Constitution forbids torture relative to obtaining trial matters in the 5th and 6th Amendments, and prohibits torture as a punishment in the 8th Amendment.
By standard US law -- if authorities torture a subject, they are required to let him go -- which is the toss-up. The US can torture someone to get information -- but if they do, they are not allowed to prosecute the person.
Or they can prosecute the person for alleged crimes -- but if they do, they are Constitutionally forbidden from tortuing them.
Those are Constitutional limits -- the fact that the US also has federal statutes and has ratified international treaties that forbid torture under any circumstances -- those are just legal extras. But for a country that routinely breaks its own laws, that's nothing new either.
2007-10-19 11:53:36 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Yes if it saves an American life.
2007-10-19 12:15:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no and no...people who are tortured will say whatever you want them to say and NO evidence exists that proves otherwise
2007-10-19 11:52:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋