Torturing terrorists to save innocent lives...

[Storm]

Do you agree with it? I personally am very surprised at just how much the vast majority of people are against it. I know people who are innocent could get tortured, this is a problem. But if we were absolutely certain that a terrorist held information that could save even just one innocent life, then I say torture them, even medieval style if its going to save lives.

Of course, this would be the VERY LAST resort.

And if it were that simple, I would agree. But it never is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the definition of torture is vague. All I am saying is, I believe the military will be taking less prisoners in the future.

Do you have such little faith and confidence in the members of your military that you really believe they'd say to themselves something like, "well, if I can't make this guy suffer for a while the way I want, I'll just off him instead"?

 

[kai]

Torture has no place in a modern society,or modern armed forces, its counterproductive, people will tell you what you want to hear. As for capturing prisoners most prisoners are captured because they surrender. and interrogation is not the role of the ordinary soldier. Thats for professionals.

 

[HoldemDB9]

And if it were that simple, I would agree. But it never is.

Well I was assuming that it was that easy, I do know however, that it is not.

It seems that people are against torture because of obvious reasons like "they'll tell you what you want to hear". Basically just saying that it wont work. I'm only for the torture of terrorists if it was proven to be effective. And if people like the government are doing it, I'm sure it will be controlled and I'm sure they will know what they are doing.

As for reasons like "that's terrorism itself", well I disagree. Like I said, it would be a LAST resort, I would have to be pretty sure that it was going to work and I would have to be sure that the person was actually holding the information.

Seriously for all who are against. If you were almost certain that someone was holding information that - if released - would cause one of your family members to survive and you were fairly sure that you would get this information by torturing, plus you tried all the other options, would you be for or against torturing this person medieval style? This is the situation I'm talking about. Call it terrorism if you want, but Id do it myself to save an innocent family member.

 

[HoldemDB9]

As others have said, these are tactics terrorists use. How can we say torture is wrong if we do it ourselves?

Because it would not be the same. We would be doing it to save lives.

It is very hypocritical. Besides that fact I believe that every person, no matter who or what they have done, don't deserve torture.

Someone who holds information that will save 100 innocent lives if released, should not be tortured, if all other options have been exhausted?

Resorting to torture is basically admitting that the people you are torturing are not even human because who can do whatever the hell you want with them to get the information you want. It is just plain wrong.

I strongly disagree. Finger nails grow back, lives don't.

 

[kai]

Well I was assuming that it was that easy, I do know however, that it is not.

It seems that people are against torture because of obvious reasons like "they'll tell you what you want to hear". Basically just saying that it wont work. I'm only for the torture of terrorists if it was proven to be effective. And if people like the government are doing it, I'm sure it will be controlled and I'm sure they will know what they are doing.

As for reasons like "that's terrorism itself", well I disagree. Like I said, it would be a LAST resort, I would have to be pretty sure that it was going to work and I would have to be sure that the person was actually holding the information.

Seriously for all who are against. If you were almost certain that someone was holding information that - if released - would cause one of your family members to survive and you were fairly sure that you would get this information by torturing, plus you tried all the other options, would you be for or against torturing this person medieval style? This is the situation I'm talking about. Call it terrorism if you want, but Id do it myself to save an innocent family member.

As a vigilante yes i would ,but as far as the state doing it ? No way!

 

[sandandfoam]

Torture is wrong. It is a part of what made regimes like the Khmer Rouge and Stalin's Russia such abominations.
I hope the upcoming trial of comrade Duch (formerly of the Khmer Rouge BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Landmark Khmer Rouge trial starts ) will achieve some justice. When I was listening to a report about Duch on the radio the other day it sent a shiver up my spine to hear that Duch had pioneered the use of 'waterboarding' - which as Rumsfeld and Bush told us - is not torture. No civilized society should as much as dip a toe into the cesspool of torture. The price is too high.

 

[Phasmid]

Do you agree with it? I personally am very surprised at just how much the vast majority of people are against it. I know people who are innocent could get tortured, this is a problem. But if we were absolutely certain that a terrorist held information that could save even just one innocent life, then I say torture them, even medieval style if its going to save lives.

Of course, this would be the VERY LAST resort.

Think of all the hardship and toil the free world has gone through in order to bring about individual freedom. You'd throw that away, simply because a few nut cases? The only way to beat terrorism is through education and the eradication of poverty, not torture. All this works to the terrorists advantage... they're winning if you compromise on your integrity and belief in human rights.

 

[McBell]

Seriously for all who are against. If you were almost certain that someone was holding information that - if released - would cause one of your family members to survive and you were fairly sure that you would get this information by torturing, plus you tried all the other options, would you be for or against torturing this person medieval style? This is the situation I'm talking about. Call it terrorism if you want, but Id do it myself to save an innocent family member.

I completely disagree with your "if we can't torture them we must let them go" approach to the debate.

This is far from the black and white situation you would attempt to present here.

 

[.lava]

Do you agree with it? I personally am very surprised at just how much the vast majority of people are against it. I know people who are innocent could get tortured, this is a problem. But if we were absolutely certain that a terrorist held information that could save even just one innocent life, then I say torture them, even medieval style if its going to save lives.

Of course, this would be the VERY LAST resort.

torturing a living creature kills innocence and humanity within YOU. if you can't save yourself, then better not to try saving others.

.

 

[HoldemDB9]

I completely disagree with your "if we can't torture them we must let them go" approach to the debate.

I don't understand, when did I say this?

This is far from the black and white situation you would attempt to present here.

I know the issue of torture is far from this at the moment. But I'm talking about if situations like this were to arise (I'm sure they will and I'm sure they have).

I don't just want the government to start torturing terrorists tomorrow, its just that - generally - I don't think it's a bad idea. If we could vote on whether or not the government should start torturing terrorists, I would not vote until I knew enough about it. But if we could get accurate results often enough and if it was controlled, I would be for.

 

[McBell]

I don't understand, when did I say this?

You are continuely saying "if released" in your arguments.
Why the hell would they be "released" if they are important enough to torture?

I know the issue of torture is far from this at the moment. But I'm talking about if situations like this were to arise (I'm sure they will and I'm sure they have).

So we have no other way to get information than to reduce ourselves to their level?
Perhaps we ain't as smart as we want the world to think.

I don't just want the government to start torturing terrorists tomorrow, its just that - generally - I don't think it's a bad idea. If we could vote on whether or not the government should start torturing terrorists, I would not vote until I knew enough about it. But if we could get accurate results often enough and if it was controlled, I would be for.

accurate results?
From torture?

 

[HoldemDB9]

You are continuely saying "if released" in your arguments.
Why the hell would they be "released" if they are important enough to torture?

You've misunderstood me. When I was saying "if released" I did not mean the terrorist, I meant the information that the terrorist held. Obviously I would lock them up rather than torture them.

So we have no other way to get information than to reduce ourselves to their level?
Perhaps we ain't as smart as we want the world to think.

We may have other ways, but they might not be as effective. I'm not even sure if torture is very effective. But what I'm saying is that if it is, then I would be for it. And by effective I mean getting the information that is needed - that would be, imo, the number one priority.

accurate results?
From torture?

This whole thread is assuming that if we would get accurate results form torture, would you agree with it. Not whether or not the results from torture are actually accurate.

 

[.lava]

We may have other ways, but they might not be as effective. I'm not even sure if torture is very effective. But what I'm saying is that if it is, then I would be for it. And by effective I mean getting the information that is needed - that would be, imo, the number one priority.

i hope you consider that terrorists also have their own logic to justify their actions, torturings and killings. main purpose of an terror attack is to give fear to society. now you're talking about giving fear and hurting someone else for greater good. that is very likely what terrorist could possibly say as well. as a human being your priority is to be humane. regardless what conditions are, you have to be humane to serve innocence of this world. if not, then, become maniac with maniacs, become terrorist with terrorsits...etc. and you are noone cos you depend on others. if you're willing to give yourself permission to leave borders of humanity and act like monsters then terrorist should be the first one you can relate with. cos that is what they do.

.

 

[HoldemDB9]

i hope you consider that terrorists also have their own logic to justify their actions, torturings and killings. main purpose of an terror attack is to give fear to society.

Yes they do have their logic, like you said its to "give fear to society". I have my logic, and its to "save innocent lives". I see a difference and I would be surprised if you did not.

If there was strong enough reason to believe that innocent people were going to die unless certain information was released from a terrorist, and all other options have been exhausted, would you honestly still say "no, don't cut off this guys fingertips to save innocent people, its not nice"?

You can put "imposing fear on innocent people" and "saving innocent people by torturing a terrorist" into the same category of evil if you like, but I don't, and I find it insane that anyone would.

 

[zippythepinhead]

Do you agree with it? I personally am very surprised at just how much the vast majority of people are against it. I know people who are innocent could get tortured, this is a problem. But if we were absolutely certain that a terrorist held information that could save even just one innocent life, then I say torture them, even medieval style if its going to save lives.

Of course, this would be the VERY LAST resort.

As a VERY LAST RESORT and/or IMMENENT DANGER to individuals or the general populace I think that certain types of torture have their place in society(And you Heathen types don't try to take me out of context):slap:

 

[Sunstone]

I strongly doubt torture is a practical way of getting accurate and truthful information -- let alone moral.

 

[.lava]

Yes they do have their logic, like you said its to "give fear to society". I have my logic, and its to "save innocent lives". I see a difference and I would be surprised if you did not.

yes, i know you see a difference between. that's the point. to you, your reason is more acceptable than his. but unfortunately his reason is more acceptable than yours, probably. from where i stand the act stands under the same roof. different reasons, different ways..etc but the act is the same act.

If there was strong enough reason to believe that innocent people were going to die unless certain information was released from a terrorist, and all other options have been exhausted, would you honestly still say "no, don't cut off this guys fingertips to save innocent people, its not nice"?

OK, let me put it this way. if i was the innocent life in danger, i would prefer you not to torture anyone to save me. this is not really about his fingertips. this is about your humanity. you can't come up and say you are humane if you tortured someone. you'd probably damage and even lose certain part of you that you'd need to respect yourself. because that would mean you can become 'anything' in certain conditions. if you let that door open to unknown possibilities that includes pure violance which is justified simply by condition itself, then i do not think it would be possible for you to trust yourself, to know yourself because depending on condition could always come up as an excuse.

You can put "imposing fear on innocent people" and "saving innocent people by torturing a terrorist" into the same category of evil if you like, but I don't, and I find it insane that anyone would.

is it normal for you to torture? i think not. seems like it might become normal in special situations as you described. this is what concerns me. you should not let conditions change you that much. i think there should be lines that you never cross. are there any border lines you'd never cross?

.

 

[.lava]

I strongly doubt torture is a practical way of getting accurate and truthful information -- let alone moral.

didn't they invent chemicals that make people tell the truth?

.

 

[Azakel]

didn't they invent chemicals that make people tell the truth?

.

A truth drug (or truth serum) is a psychoactive drug used to attempt to obtain information from an unwilling subject, most often by a police, intelligence, or military organization. The use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law.

It's not 100% like all other forms of torture...yes it is classified as torture.

Truth drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia