Next Question
RSS
Sorry, but I can't agree. Under no circumstances should torture be used.
- If the person in question is a trained militant, chances are they will lie, misdirect, or delay response, resulting in no gain. If they are not trained, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear to escape the pain. Essentially, torture is ineffective.
- Joining the ranks of states willing to torture reduces our standing in the world. Think of the nations - past and present - that you equate with the willingness to torture. Retaining the moral high ground is more difficult, but is where the U.S. has placed itself in the world historically: a nation where the rule of of law and human rights dominate.
- Torturing endangers our troops and/or citizens should they be captured. It's much easier to rationalize cruelty against someone who would theoretically torture you if the positions were reversed. It will also, inevitably, be used on someone unjustly convicted.
- Torture increases the recruiting efforts and number of your enemies. A person who has been tortured is reasonably going to hold some life-long resentment, as will his family and friends. They are walking testament to the barbarism of the torturer.
- Torture damages the person commiting it. The 'evildoer' has to be dehumanized for a rational person to inflict damage - best case scenario. If a person was willing to inflict pain or damage to anyone, well, how willing would you be to sit on the bus next to him/her? Have your kid go over to their house to play?
The phrase I grew up with was "Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished for a crime he did not commit."
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
cherman
Source(s):
imho
image from
http://www.thewip.net/contributors/peace-sign.jpg
Permalink | Report
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33749589@N07/3197228223/
In a nutshell, rules were established by our grand and greatfathers to ensure we don't have to go through the same hell as they did. This applied for everybody in the world no matter what religion, race or ethnicity everybody gets the same rules when it comes to war.
One of the things our fathers eliminated from war to ensure the human race moves forward in peace.... was Torture.
When you think of "The good guys" and "the bad guys" remember, the "bad guys" are the ones who torture and think up reasons to justify it.
Permalink | Report
For example, Saddam Hussein lied that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Over and over again until everyone had believed him. If someone elsewhere in the world had been hit by a WMD and he took responsibility, do you really think we should torture him?
I'm all for torture most of the time, so this answer is fairly rhetorical, but I can't say that you should do it just because they've admitted to a crime.
Alternatively, our enemies would torture us in a heartbeat. You could say, we don't want to stoop to their level. But frankly, they'll behead you. They'll defecate on your remains. So if I had someone in custody that could offer me information, I would do absolutely whatever I had to do including torture them without even thinking about it.
Permalink | Report
The truth is that good people will always do good things, because it's their nature. Bad people will always do bad things, because it's their nature.
t's the rest of us that count. We who are not so good and not so bad have to determine when we must stand up against evil, and when we must not be blinded by the light of goodness. To keep us and our families safe we chose men and woman who can work in the gray and in the twilight. Sometimes they do things that we would be ashamed to see in the light of day. But this is what (very occasionally we hope) must be done so that civilization survives. Remember, the Western Roman Empire did not dissolve while it was pagan. It dissolved after it became Christian.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Another thing is this: If it's okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us bin Ladin, is it okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us, say, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about notorious bank robbers like Bonnie and Clyde? If you drag in the accomplice of a man who robbed the Kwik-E-Mart, is it okay to torture him to prevent future Kwik-E-Marts from being put in danger?
Torture is a bad practice. It validates your enemies' views of you, which strengthens their resolve. It costs you the moral high ground in conflicts. It almost guarantees that the men and women of your armed forces who are captured will be tortured, whether they have useful information or not. It costs you allies who are appalled by the way you would treat other human beings, even the ones who kill you.
And this doesn't mention the effect that torture can have on the torturer. I know I hate Osama bin Ladin a lot for what he's done. But I also know I wouldn't want to torture him.
Permalink | Report
In any war that is not absolutely one of mutual annihilation, there will be prisoners on both sides, and there will be peace later. Torture lowers the bar on how our soldiers will be treated when captured. Sure, not everyone lives up to the Geneva convention, but the closer we hold, the more other powers will at least pretend to uphold it. The more we ignore it, the more danger our own servicemen will be placed in when captured.
Also, torture does not produce reliable information, does not deter fanatics, and tends to produce more enemies. So it's something that obviously works against America and those who serve it. Which makes it unpatriotic.
Permalink | Report
All the major spiritual leaders since Old Testament times have spoken out against the "eye for an eye" legal system. Jesus preached compassion for your fellow man, and Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
Just as modern Christian people no longer live their lives according to the Old Testament, modern laws have progressed beyond "you hurt me so I'll hurt you back." I have faith that humanity can as a whole progress beyond this primitive level of moral understanding. There are many many examples of those who have taken the higher ground, the only thing left is for everyone to get tired of hurting and being hurt, and take a new direction.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
January 14, 2009 11:48 PM
Who agrees with me that torture should be used with terrorists that admit crime/genocide?
For example, if they caught Bin Laden or any other terrorist that says that he killed American lives, why should we not torture this person so he/she tells more about their plan to kill innocent lives? I am against sending people to jail without going to trial, but why not torture already convicted people for information?
Interesting Question?
Yes (1)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| January 15, 2009 04:49 PM |
- If the person in question is a trained militant, chances are they will lie, misdirect, or delay response, resulting in no gain. If they are not trained, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear to escape the pain. Essentially, torture is ineffective.
- Joining the ranks of states willing to torture reduces our standing in the world. Think of the nations - past and present - that you equate with the willingness to torture. Retaining the moral high ground is more difficult, but is where the U.S. has placed itself in the world historically: a nation where the rule of of law and human rights dominate.
- Torturing endangers our troops and/or citizens should they be captured. It's much easier to rationalize cruelty against someone who would theoretically torture you if the positions were reversed. It will also, inevitably, be used on someone unjustly convicted.
- Torture increases the recruiting efforts and number of your enemies. A person who has been tortured is reasonably going to hold some life-long resentment, as will his family and friends. They are walking testament to the barbarism of the torturer.
- Torture damages the person commiting it. The 'evildoer' has to be dehumanized for a rational person to inflict damage - best case scenario. If a person was willing to inflict pain or damage to anyone, well, how willing would you be to sit on the bus next to him/her? Have your kid go over to their house to play?
The phrase I grew up with was "Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished for a crime he did not commit."
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (12)
January 14, 2009 11:54 PM
The reason you wouldn't want to torture is because people will say anything under such duress. Put yourself in his shoes: if you were being tortured, would you not say anything to get out of your current predicament? I believe justice should be served, but let's be a little more humane than tit-for-tat. What do you think?
Permalink | Report
Reply
cherman
January 14, 2009 11:57 PM
Anything said during torture is and should not be evidence, but if you capture Osama's second, and we torture him enough, he could tell us where Osama is.
Tip cherman for this comment
Report
January 15, 2009 12:04 AM
From wikipedia:
Omar Osama bin Laden; (born c 1981) son of Osama and Najwa; Omar accompanied Osama on his exile to Sudan from 1991-1996, and then to Afghanistan after that. He returned to Saudi Arabia after an apparent falling-out with his father over the September 11 attacks. For a while Omar ran his own company in Jeddah as a contractor and also worked with large consignments of scrap metals, and has recently married Zaina Mohamed Al-Sabah aka Jane Felix-Browne, a parish councillor from Moulton, near Northwich in Cheshire UK. Their mutual love of horses brought them together. She is his third wife and 24 years older than him, and he is her sixth husband. He had one son, outside of marriage. The couple announced their divorce in September 2007; she cited threats to their "lives and liberty".[13] After 2 weeks Zaina and Omar decided not to part and would not let threats destroy their marriage, they are now together, they have just finished filming for a BBC documentary, Omar and Zaina will live in Europe and work in politics in hope of bringing world peace.
A news article from MSNBC suggesting Bin Laden's son is an "ambassador of peace": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22711392/
I know I probably won't get a mahalo dollar for my answer, but I think I have to disagree with you. I wouldn't want to torture anyone, let alone a guy who wants to change things for the better.
Report
Omar Osama bin Laden; (born c 1981) son of Osama and Najwa; Omar accompanied Osama on his exile to Sudan from 1991-1996, and then to Afghanistan after that. He returned to Saudi Arabia after an apparent falling-out with his father over the September 11 attacks. For a while Omar ran his own company in Jeddah as a contractor and also worked with large consignments of scrap metals, and has recently married Zaina Mohamed Al-Sabah aka Jane Felix-Browne, a parish councillor from Moulton, near Northwich in Cheshire UK. Their mutual love of horses brought them together. She is his third wife and 24 years older than him, and he is her sixth husband. He had one son, outside of marriage. The couple announced their divorce in September 2007; she cited threats to their "lives and liberty".[13] After 2 weeks Zaina and Omar decided not to part and would not let threats destroy their marriage, they are now together, they have just finished filming for a BBC documentary, Omar and Zaina will live in Europe and work in politics in hope of bringing world peace.
A news article from MSNBC suggesting Bin Laden's son is an "ambassador of peace": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22711392/
I know I probably won't get a mahalo dollar for my answer, but I think I have to disagree with you. I wouldn't want to torture anyone, let alone a guy who wants to change things for the better.
January 15, 2009 12:19 AM
I think cherman was talking about Bin Laden's second in command rather than his son.
Report
January 15, 2009 12:21 AM
son or 2nd in command, there has to be a better way than torture. The United States should serve as the model of peace and virtue, not torture.
Report
January 14, 2009 11:54 PM
We should never torture anyone because that behavior is what breeds terrorism. Those who have been labeled as "evil doers" believe that they are right and honorable. They believe that those whom they are harming deserve to be harmed. When we behave in the same way (even as individuals) we are demonstrating that what is believed about us is true and worthy of of that same treatment. Source(s):
imho
image from
http://www.thewip.net/contributors/peace-sign.jpg
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 12:22 AM
Terrorism is a result of many things, not just torture. The torture of the Spanish Inquisition was not a result of torture it was a result of extremist religion.
Report
January 14, 2009 11:58 PM
Back in the 40's there was a HUGE war, the whole world was involved it killed millions upon millions. The survivors of that war looked at each other and were like "sh*t, that sucked, I think I would rather live in peace, lets draft some rules so the we don't go through that again" In a nutshell, rules were established by our grand and greatfathers to ensure we don't have to go through the same hell as they did. This applied for everybody in the world no matter what religion, race or ethnicity everybody gets the same rules when it comes to war.
One of the things our fathers eliminated from war to ensure the human race moves forward in peace.... was Torture.
When you think of "The good guys" and "the bad guys" remember, the "bad guys" are the ones who torture and think up reasons to justify it.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 12:25 AM
This convention is a pact between nations that concerns prisoners of war. I question whether or not prisoners of terrorism should be included in this pact. Does anyone know if there is a case where Al Qaeda has not killed an American that they captured?
Report
January 15, 2009 12:38 AM
How the enemy acts has no bearing on how we should act. We should not... we can not not stoop down to the level of attempting to justify the ends regardless of the means.
A known terrorist, IE, convicted in a court of law or some sort of military commission should be dealt with by sticking them in jail. Execution is not out of the question in this country, but torture is.
If you are claiming that everyone that has been tortured is a terrorist, then you are not correct. They are suspects, and have not been proven guilty. While I don't expect them to get a civil trial like a citizen would, I would expect them to get the most fair treatment possible (via military trial or whatever other method is in use) in determining whether or not they have committed such acts against this country.
If they have not been tried, they can not be assumed to be guilty.
Report
A known terrorist, IE, convicted in a court of law or some sort of military commission should be dealt with by sticking them in jail. Execution is not out of the question in this country, but torture is.
If you are claiming that everyone that has been tortured is a terrorist, then you are not correct. They are suspects, and have not been proven guilty. While I don't expect them to get a civil trial like a citizen would, I would expect them to get the most fair treatment possible (via military trial or whatever other method is in use) in determining whether or not they have committed such acts against this country.
If they have not been tried, they can not be assumed to be guilty.
January 15, 2009 01:18 AM
Aside from all the other great points people have made, sometimes people are convicted and they are innocent. Things can get badly screwed up among the all hysteria, outrage and pressure to get results in a terrorist case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
January 15, 2009 03:17 AM
Nice background to the Geneva Convention, Jeff. Not following it is stooping to their level. We had the chance to maintain the moral higher ground, to set the example of how a civilized, free, modern country acts and we wasted the chance by engaging in torture, rendition, and detainment without trial at Guantanamo.
Report
January 15, 2009 12:36 AM
I disagree for one reason only. People lie. If they say they were responsible for 9/11, it doesn't mean that they were. Plenty of groups tried to take responsibility for plenty of different terrorist attacks and it doesn't mean they were. So in the end, you might torture them into recanting their story. For example, Saddam Hussein lied that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Over and over again until everyone had believed him. If someone elsewhere in the world had been hit by a WMD and he took responsibility, do you really think we should torture him?
I'm all for torture most of the time, so this answer is fairly rhetorical, but I can't say that you should do it just because they've admitted to a crime.
Alternatively, our enemies would torture us in a heartbeat. You could say, we don't want to stoop to their level. But frankly, they'll behead you. They'll defecate on your remains. So if I had someone in custody that could offer me information, I would do absolutely whatever I had to do including torture them without even thinking about it.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 12:40 AM
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is actually a paraphrase of Edmund Burke. This statement is wrong. The truth is that good people will always do good things, because it's their nature. Bad people will always do bad things, because it's their nature.
t's the rest of us that count. We who are not so good and not so bad have to determine when we must stand up against evil, and when we must not be blinded by the light of goodness. To keep us and our families safe we chose men and woman who can work in the gray and in the twilight. Sometimes they do things that we would be ashamed to see in the light of day. But this is what (very occasionally we hope) must be done so that civilization survives. Remember, the Western Roman Empire did not dissolve while it was pagan. It dissolved after it became Christian.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 03:38 AM
I understand what you're getting at I think, but you didn't really take a position on the question. Do you consider torture to be one of those gray areas, or an example of evil that ordinary man and women must stand up against?
Report
January 15, 2009 04:36 AM
I think that, if whatever they did, saved my son's life then it wasn't torture. I understand that we can't abandon our principles, but to have principles we have to be alive. That's why this is such a gray area. At what point does a life become more important than a principle? If Al-Qaeda showed any mercy to its prisoners then I would not accept torturing one of them to save a life.
Report
January 15, 2009 12:40 AM
Obviously I am not going to win this one, but I can't really not say that I think this is wrong. Torturing is simply not ethical. More than that though, is this: torturing is not effective. When someone is being tortured, the main thing they want is to end the torture, and the best way to do that is to tell the torturer what it is he wants to hear. Also, torturing someone for prolonged amounts of time could break their mind, which would be a terrible thing to do to anyone, and would make them totally unable to render any useful information to anyone.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 01:49 AM
Here's the downfall of torture: While it might work for Jack Bauer, it's highly unreliable. The reason confessions gained under duress by police are inadmissible in court is because in the past, cops would threaten and pummel suspects into confessing to crimes just to get cases solved. It isn't justice. Another thing is this: If it's okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us bin Ladin, is it okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us, say, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about notorious bank robbers like Bonnie and Clyde? If you drag in the accomplice of a man who robbed the Kwik-E-Mart, is it okay to torture him to prevent future Kwik-E-Marts from being put in danger?
Torture is a bad practice. It validates your enemies' views of you, which strengthens their resolve. It costs you the moral high ground in conflicts. It almost guarantees that the men and women of your armed forces who are captured will be tortured, whether they have useful information or not. It costs you allies who are appalled by the way you would treat other human beings, even the ones who kill you.
And this doesn't mention the effect that torture can have on the torturer. I know I hate Osama bin Ladin a lot for what he's done. But I also know I wouldn't want to torture him.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 02:07 AM
A lot of good points have been made, however I don't think anyone has mentioned one of the primary reasons we (or at lease we used to) treat prisoners humanely. In any war that is not absolutely one of mutual annihilation, there will be prisoners on both sides, and there will be peace later. Torture lowers the bar on how our soldiers will be treated when captured. Sure, not everyone lives up to the Geneva convention, but the closer we hold, the more other powers will at least pretend to uphold it. The more we ignore it, the more danger our own servicemen will be placed in when captured.
Also, torture does not produce reliable information, does not deter fanatics, and tends to produce more enemies. So it's something that obviously works against America and those who serve it. Which makes it unpatriotic.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 15, 2009 03:32 AM
To put this in a different perspective, let's consider the Old Testament in the Bible. In the Old Testament, there is a lot of writing about laws and codes for society to live by. Many of the laws called for retribution to those who wronged someone. If you hurt someone, your punishment was to be hurt in the same way. One example given is of poking out your neighbor's eye and getting yours poked out in return. This does seem fair on the face of it, but it's really quite immature. If you had a brother or sister you understand how this works. When you're young and your brother hits you, you hit him back. As you get older, you gradually learn that even if you weren't the one who started it, all hitting him back does is leave you both bruised and in trouble with your parents. What some kids eventually realize is that it works out much better for you if you can frame him as the aggressor, so he gets in trouble and you don't. Sometimes people don't get to this understanding, and remain stuck in the more primitive "eye for an eye" stage of moral development. All the major spiritual leaders since Old Testament times have spoken out against the "eye for an eye" legal system. Jesus preached compassion for your fellow man, and Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
Just as modern Christian people no longer live their lives according to the Old Testament, modern laws have progressed beyond "you hurt me so I'll hurt you back." I have faith that humanity can as a whole progress beyond this primitive level of moral understanding. There are many many examples of those who have taken the higher ground, the only thing left is for everyone to get tired of hurting and being hurt, and take a new direction.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- hessloves969, November 24, 2009 01:35 PM
- ponderr, November 24, 2009 01:34 PM
- phantomcameron, November 24, 2009 01:33 PM
- zenphsoundinnov..., November 24, 2009 01:31 PM
- nicholas0085, November 24, 2009 01:22 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
