Should the US Military Torture to Gain Information

well, ethically correct or not, if two guys kidnapped my daughter, if I happened to catch one of them, I would make him endure the most intense pain he has ever endured until he tells me where I can find her
 
well, you arent the US government. you could in theory do that, but also suffer the consequences of those actions as well.

our government however is founded on the principles of human rights. we are supposed to be the greatest nation on this planet, and are supposed to set an example for the rest of the world. what kind of example does torturing set? i am sure for muslim extremists, it makes a great example of "look at hypocritical elitist america, prosecuting others for their wrongdoings, while doing the same shit themselves"
 
personal opinion... they dont have the same values as us... so fuck them.

a good hard interrogation (ie a slap or two. or a punch), or a threat goes a long way to get someone to talk.
 
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. I believe Franklin was referring to the essential liberties of Americans, IMO, it doesn't apply here.
 
a LOT of people dont have the same values as us... its the way of the world. that still doesnt mean we should throw away our values because of it.

as for interrogation. threaten all you want. but ACTUALLY torturing is wrong.
 
ever seen Four Brothers... watch what the cops do to Wahlberg, Gibson, and Andre 3000 characters at the end... doing something like that im ok with.
 
its not hypocritical at all, the only reason they torture, is because the people they are torturing started a bunch of shit; by torturing, theyre just retaliating and trying to limit the dammage that the first party did in the first place. Following your train of thought, when america goes to war, they shouldnt bring guns and weapons and they shouldnt shoot anyone, even if theyre getting shot at, because when you kill someone, you violate his most basic human right
 
Wahlbergs head gets Heath Ledger Joker slammed off the table a couple times... Gibson and Andre get their jaws rocked a couple times.
 
how far does threatening go?

can you freak them out to the point they believe they will be harmed but no harm actually comes to them? i can think of some pretty fucked ways to threaten someone dare i say mental torture?
 
i don't see the difference between shooting someone who can kill you on the battlefied, or torturing someone that planned an attack that might kill thousands. Ah, actually I see a difference: in both situations the "enemy" had the potential to kill you or others, but in the first scenario you kill him and in the second one you don't. So how can you possibly okay killing someone on the battlefield if you condemn torturing so much?
 
hahaha i knew someone would bring that up. idk where that line gets drawn, obviously at a certain point it IS to far.

however i DO know that the waterboarding we were doing was without a doubt torture, and without a doubt wrong.
 
America has some fucked up rules of war sometimes...

my grandpa's brother was in Vietnam and hearing some of the stories of what they had to endure to insure not stepping on toes is horrible.

one particularity fucked story was he and his squad were marching down a road/ trail whatever. and they were told "you dont shoot at ANYTHING on this side of the road, they are friendly" well he sees something jump from one tree to another. he keeps his finger in check. down the road he sees something like it again. only this time he opens up and fucks someone shit up... he was hauled off by the MPs tossed in the brig.... the shitty part comes later when he squad was ambushed from the supposed good side of the road and a HUGE number of Americans died..... he was set free.
 


flash_video_placeholder.png


send someone back to school like Archy does....
 
and if you know for a fact that someone programmed a missile to be sent upon your base, wouldnt that qualify as being "fired upon"?. Or would you have to wait until the missile has been shot and then you could kill the person, yet not torture him beforehand?
 
I wouldnt make "dumb analogies" if you were being a bit more rational. I'm trying to make you see that you're not making any sense. Let me walk you through this, since you don't seem to understand, and you're being evasive about it. You are aloud to shoot at someone who is shooting at you. Why? So you don't get killed. In other words, you are aloud to kill someone in order to stop him from killing you, as long as he was the one who put your life in danger first. Now, if someone and his group have planned an attack on you, and the attack is about to happen, this means that they are the ones putting your life in danger, just like someone thats shooting at you. So technically you would be aloud to kill the person who presents a risk for your life, following the "dont fire until you're being shot at" law, since having a bomb or wtv already set to explode and kill you is no different than being shot at. But they don't kill those people. They just torture them in order to try to retrieve the information that would be necessary to stop attack. Putting it back in a battlefield context, it would be like torturing an enemy soldier to make him stop shooting at you, which is technically more ethic than killing him. Now instead of immediately discarding this and calling it "irrevelant" think about it and tell me how exactly does that lack sense. get real.
 
1) Please learn to spell above that of a 6 year old. i speak "aloud", i am "allowed" to do things. And dont tell me its the internet. I don't care if you use periods and commas, I do care that you use basic grammar.

2) You are allowed to shoot someone so you dont get killed. Yes, because they are attacking you.

You are not allowed to attack someone for something they HAVEN'T DONE YET. By your logic the police could just roll around shooting anyone they thought was a potential criminal. They could throw anyone in jail for anything they suspect them to be doing.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of your long and drawn out, yet ultimately irrelevant argument, that torture is wrong. Its wrong according to international, and American law. No matter how you spin it, its wrong. As for it saving lives, debatable. They had a guy in congress the other day who was doing the torturing who said they got all the info they wanted pre-torture, and that when they started waterboarding the shit out of him, hey clammed up.

Need me to get any more "real"?
 
sure

1) english is not my primary language, and I believe that a one or two mixups in words don't qualify as "spelling like a 6 year old".

2) yes, you are not allowed to attack someone for something they have not done yet. However, if there is sufficient proof that something will happen, then i think it's just like getting attacked. I won't discuss what would qualify as sufficient proof in great dephts, but to make it extremely simple, let's say that there is a timer on a bomb. The fact that the weapon has been set to detonate should be enough to be qualified as an attack, thus justifying the initiation of an action to stop the attack. On the battlefield, that action is to kill the other person to stop him from shooting you. When it comes to bombs, killing the person would be irrevelant because it wouldnt stop the threat. Torture could stop it (maybe not all the time, but if there is a small chance that it would help, then it's better than nothing).
 
no its not "better than nothing" its not better than anything.

a couple problems with this argument

a) what is "sufficient proof"? when is a person "tortureable"

and b) none of the instances where we have tortured has been one of these "imminent bomb attack" moments. its been oh look, we have this guy, lets see what he knows. or for that matter, lets see if we can make him create a way for us to connect iraq and al-quaeda.
 
they don't torture "anyone" just to "See what they know". They torture specific people to gain certain answers they believe they have. When lives can be saved and it is the only way to gather information, it should be used. I think that in extreme cases, certain values can be "bent" in order to get information that can help prevent harm that would be much greater than the harm inflicted by the torture.
 
to use the words of a certain Mirko Bagaric: Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in

New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had

overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to

be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those

circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm, if

that didn't work, you would escalate it.

"In those circumstances that would be justified. I think as

a society we would accept that one person being harmed to save

thousands is legitimate."
 
no they shouldnt. period.

and dont you think torturing people to get the answers they want to hear is a dangerous thing to do? idk about you but i would say just about anything in order to get them to stop torturing me.

"Although al-Qahtani’s lawyer reported in March 2006 that he had recanted his confession, the transcript of his ARB hearing is the first time that he has denied the 9/11 allegations in person, telling his review board, “this is the first statement I am making of my own free will and without coercion or under the threat of torture,” and stating, “I am a businessman, a peaceful man. I have no connection to terrorism, violence or fighters.” Refuting allegations that he admitted traveling to Afghanistan in 2001, that he attended a training camp, and that met Osama bin Laden and agreed to participate in a “martyr mission” for al-Qaeda, al-Qahtani said that the statements were not true and that he had only admitted to them while he was being “tortured” at Guantánamo, and included his allegations of torture in a statement that was read out to the board."

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2007/09/13/guantanamo-transcripts-ghost-prisoners-speak-after-five-and-a-half-years-and-911-hijacker-recants-his-tortured-confession/

fucking ridiculous
 
this means that they did not have enough proof to validate torture. Their criteria should be revised in order to make sure that the prisoner really has information he is not willing to freely confess. No matter how hard you try to make it sound terrible, harming someone to save thousands DOES make a lot of sense. But you are extremely stubborn and if you fail to see that, then so be it. On another note, what would you suggest the united states should do with people who have information that is vital to save thousands but that refuse to say it? Just let them walk freely?
 
no, interrogate them by LEGAL means. hold them by LEGAL means. but do not break the law. that would be what i would have them do.

and i ask you again. where is this "tortureable" line drawn? at what point is the person "terrorist enough" to be subjected to this stuff?
 
the torturable line for me would be that there is proof that the person knows information that could help prevent deaths. If the person has that type of information and is not willing to give it, it must mean that he also desires to deaths to happen.

if torture is used, its because interrogating them by LEGAL means did not work. So this is pointless.

and what are the criteria to be able to hold them by legal means?
 
criteria for holding them? the normal legal criteria

so what is PROOF they know something. how can you PROVE they know it, without knowing it?
 
and what is the legal criteria for someone who refuses to reveal information that could be vital ? If you cant get the information, well you just cant get it eh ? So I'm guessing they would just be released.

proof the know something would probably be recordings of phone conversations or copies of written emails concerning an attack. if those recordings or prints have enough information to validate the fear of an attack, but are lacking other details, then at that point you could take them in.
 
yeah, for me, if you have enough info to arrest someone. You could use torture to get more info
 
because as I have said numerous times, I believe that harming someone

who was plotting harm in order to possibly stop that harm and save

lives is justified.

the main point that we disagree on is that last sentence. You don't

think someone who plans to hurt many people deserves to get hurt if

that could save those people, and I do. And I don't think there is more

to it.
 
holy fuck. i hope to god you cant vote because the thought of that is quite frankly horrifying.
 
the thought of thousands dying because the american government decided not to rough up a greasy terrorist is also quite terryfying
 
The problem with torture is that is a victim of its own success, and just like most things if it works once the philosophy is that it will work all the time. The executive encouragement and overuse of it is the problem, and that is exactly what is going on today.
 
I don't know who glenn beck is (perhaps because I am not american), and have not been influenced by anyone, I just say what makes sense to me. But what youre basically saying is that if someone who knew that the 2001 attacks were about to go down, and the government knew that he knew, because they had records of him discussing terrorist attacks on certain "important buildings" in the year 2001, the planes actually crashing in the towers are better than torturing that guy to learn more about those attacks and prevent them ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top