When is it appropriate for Military personnel to use torture as a strategy to get info. from prisoners of war?

Question

I need help answering this question. Please tell me what u think in a paragraph. I would be very appreciated. Thx you.

Answer 1

I think torture that doesn't leave any lasting scars is okay if it prevents thousands form dying. i.e-- I would have tortured the 911 masterminds to prevent it.

Answer 2

Torture is never appropriate to extract any information from any person prisoner of war or not. Not only is it against the Geneva Convention and punishable by UCMJ, but it is also the least effective way. Torture will give you a response to a question you want answered in order for the torture to end or at least take a break from it for a little while, but will not force someone to give the true answer.

If something big is going to go off in NYC or anywhere else in 10 minutes isn't going give you enough time to do anything even if you know exactly where the device is located.

Answer 3

1. From a real life actual case in Iraq.
An insurgent is captured with war material, IED's RPG's and such. This is a region where there were a number of staged ambushes on US convoys and there is a strong suspision that this individual knows where and when the next ambush will take place. During interogation the Colonel Puts his gun to the head of the the insurgent (gun was unloaded, but the insurgent did NOT know that) After threatening to blow the guys head off he fessed up. The ambush was "ambushed". A large number of insurgents were bagged and American lives were saved. The prisoner was trheatened and scared out of his wits, but otherwise unhurt.

P.S. This Colonel was discharged for improper interogation techniques.

2. If you have a belief that the individual knows the location of a nuclear device ANYWHERE in the world that may go off soon. Then I would say it is A-OK!

3. If the Insurgent captured had taken part in the mutilation torture or abuse of children then I would say anything is fair game. (True stories here for both Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Taliban and Al-Quiada go after your children if you do something to make them upset.)

I could come up with more.

Basically quoting General Tecumseh Sherman.

War is hell.

Answer 4

Appropriate? Theres alot of things that are inappropriate in this world but it happens. There's alot of things that wouldn't be if "inappropriate" things were not done. 100,000 people were killed when the US bombed in Japan. Is that appropriate or not? Appropriateness, just as moralness is a debatable concept. Why is Robin Hood a good guy when he really was a thief? What makes something moral vs. immoral?
Now, first of all, lets establish that LEGAL and LAWFUL is different. It is ILLEGAL to torture POWs.
But lets play with this scenario... the US military tortures a specific POW who knows nothing, were their actions appropriate? VERSUS, if the US military tortures this specific POW who had information about a planned terrorist attack and was able to stop a second 9/11, then are their actions appropriate?
So I think that the answer lies in who you are... as a US citizen I simply choose to have faith that the government will keep things relatively appropriate and that I will support the military and whatever means necessary they take to protect us.

Answer 5

torture is illegal for military personnel to us in accordance with military justice definition and should be avoided by our personnel however, they use the terms of enhanced interrogation technics which are legal for our personnel to use these technics are a form of torture but are physiological in nature and have no lasting effects to the individuals body IE a drop of water hitting you in the forehead every second would drive you crazy in a short time but the more drastic forms should never be used IE like the viet cong and bamboo shoved under the finger nails. The only time that I would even consider the harsher forms would be in a dire emergency example you have caught a person who has set a chemical bomb to go off in 10 minutes in the middle of a city (NYC) and you need to find it now (or worse a nuke) You would lose them in court but you could save thousands Note this wont work with a suicide bomber/fanatic type of individual hope this helps GL

Answer 6

Never.

The United States Constitution states that the Constitution and treaties made under it are the "supreme Law of the Land."

Our country has signed the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. It is now the "supreme Law of the Land."

United States military or civilian personnel cannot torture. Military personnel and civil service employees all swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Torture not only violates the treaty, it violates the oath.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention forbids the following:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Answer 7

It is not okay to TORTURE any of our POW's. We can interrogate using different methods, we can not threaten their families or their lives. Legally anyway. It does happen as we all know and our men do pay the price for it. I personally wouldn't want to be a person in that position since human instinct to obtain answers to win has been known to take over the better half of one's ability to make sound decisions.

Answer 8

It is never appropriate to use torture on POWs. That being said, the definitiion of torture is relative. What is sleep deprivation and loud noises at random times to put someone on edge? is it really torture if it doesn't actually do anything to hurt them? is scaring someone into THINKING you're going to hurt them torture? that's the blurred line that people are having trouble with.

Answer 9

Never, especially according to the Geneva Convention. If you choose to flaunt that particular aspect of the Geneva Convention, don't get too upset when your enemy flaunts the others. Besides, if your enemies think torturing captured soldiers from your military will save the lives of their comrades, wouldn't it be just for them to do it also?

There are no good or bad sides in the world, apparently. Everyone thinks they're the good guys, thus mooting the "greater good" argument.

Answer 10

what is your definition of torture would have to be the first question answered to me torture would be cutting off someones hands to get information from them in which case never but if you believe that by giving them MREs that they may or may not eat because of their beliefs is torture then I say we don't run a mess hall and they get what's in the box.

Answer 11

no one will acquire eternal punishment for stealing something, or murdering all and sundry, or raping all and sundry or the different sin you are able to call. the only element which will deliver a guy or woman into eternal punishment is for no longer accepting Jesus Christ simply by fact the only that has already paid for their sin, inspite of what the sin is. you're meant to be an "ex-Christian". in case you have been ever a Christian you're able to desire to understand that.