Torturing terrorists to save innocent lives...

[HoldemDB9]

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.

What, and you honestly don't see a difference?

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.

Well I think there is something wrong with you if you would allow your life to be put in danger just so a terrorist does not come to any harm. I guess I must value my life more than you do. But please answer the question, what if it was your family?

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?

I don't know, maybe they are lines that I would never cross. But putting an evil person through pain in order to save innocent lives is something that I have no problem with. I guess its just that I value innocent life higher than I value a terrorists feelings.

Honestly, would you allow innocent people to die when torturing might have saved them?

 

[neves]

I think you should change the title form "terrorist" to "suspected terrorist"... I mean a trial would be nice to start with...wasn't it innocent until proven guilty?... or that's what it used to be...

 

[Mjolnir]

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



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



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

So the ends justify the means basically?
But the people that you are torturing are still human, it is just wrong are a moral level and practical one.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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

You must have lived a sheltered life Phil. You see, the information that is harvested is checked for accuracy. If the information is false, the informant is confronted with the misinformation.

Interrogation is not a physical thing, it is a mental game. As far as morals, if you have permanent damage from the ordeal, then I agree with you. If you thought you where drowning for a few seconds, it is debatable. Either way, this is in the past now. Right or wrong, our President has changed this.

Time will tell if it was a good, great, or bad decision. Some times people do bad things for good reasons and vice versa.

 

[HoldemDB9]

So the ends justify the means basically?

Yes they certainly do. Do you value the comfort of terrorist OVER the LIVES of innocent people?

But the people that you are torturing are still human, it is just wrong are a moral level and practical one.

So you would also choose to risk innocent lives over choosing to put a terrorist through pain?

 

[zippythepinhead]

I hope that none of us would ever have to be put in a situation to have to make let alone carry out a decision to torture for the sake of saving life, liberty, or country.

That said if one of my children were abducted like in the movie "Taken" I would not say that I would do ALL within my power to secure their freedom. Of course legally should always be used. Only when all legal means have been exhausted OR time is of the essence.

Again Heathens of the world don't take my words out of context as condoning such practices as acceptable. Torture is a deplorable form of human punishment and is a depraved type of practice unless literally there is no other way to get information to save human life, liberty, or happiness.

 

[HoldemDB9]

I hope that none of us would ever have to be put in a situation to have to make let alone carry out a decision to torture for the sake of saving life, liberty, or country.

That said if one of my children were abducted like in the movie "Taken" I would not say that I would do ALL within my power to secure their freedom. Of course legally should always be used. Only when all legal means have been exhausted OR time is of the essence.

Again Heathens of the world don't take my words out of context as condoning such practices as acceptable. Torture is a deplorable form of human punishment and is a depraved type of practice unless literally there is no other way to get information to save human life, liberty, or happiness.

This is what I mean. I cant see how anyone could possibly disagree. I guess people are just so against the idea of torture, that they claim to be against it no matter what the situation is. No wonder people who claim to be completley 100% against torture don't answer when I ask if they would do it to save their family's. It obvious that they would, why not just admit it.

 

[McBell]

It obvious that they would, why not just admit it.

Who said that they are 100% against torture?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A terrorist to one nation is a hero and potential martyr to another. I do not think torture should be used at any cost, especially since treating captives humanly has produced more truthful information than torture has ever forced out of people, which is often a lie anyways.

 

[HoldemDB9]

Who said that they are 100% against torture?

People are certainly talking as if they are 100% against it. See the response below.

I do not think torture should be used at any cost,

You cant be serious. Ill ask you what I've asked others, what if it was your family in danger?

 

[Mjolnir]

Yes they certainly do. Do you value the comfort of terrorist OVER the LIVES of innocent people?



So you would also choose to risk innocent lives over choosing to put a terrorist through pain?

I am not saying that the terrorist should be comfortable. As I said the terrorist is still a person, they have the right to not be tortured. Do you think all terrorists are so evil? A terrorist to some people is not to other people.

If the pain means ripping the fingernails out of the terrorist then I guess I would, you are basically on their level when you are torturing them.

As to if my family was in danger, the terrorist has a family and its still alright I guess you are saying to put him through extreme pain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes they certainly do. Do you value the comfort of terrorist OVER the LIVES of innocent people?

False dilemma.

So you would also choose to risk innocent lives over choosing to put a terrorist through pain?

False dilemma.

 

[Smoke]

You see, the information that is harvested is checked for accuracy.

The late administration is not noted for its fact-checking proficiency, but even if it were:

a) By making such a claim, you are admitting that information obtained through torture is known to be unreliable.

b) If it's possible to fact-check the information obtained through torture, then it's possible to obtain that information without torture.

 

[Smoke]

That said if one of my children were abducted like in the movie "Taken" I would not say that I would do ALL within my power to secure their freedom.

Do you find it at all interesting that you have to use a movie as an example? There just aren't a lot of instances of real-life situations where time is of the essence and torture can save the day, are there? There are, however, lots of real-life instances of people being tortured into giving false information.

No wonder people who claim to be completley 100% against torture don't answer when I ask if they would do it to save their family's. It obvious that they would, why not just admit it.

I wouldn't. I don't even believe it would be a good way to save my family, so what would be the point?

Who said that they are 100% against torture?

I didn't say so earlier in this thread, but I am.

 

[sandandfoam]

Who said that they are 100% against torture?

I didn't state it straight out But I am 100% against it. As Shadow Wolf and Mjolnir said previously one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
For example I have a very high opinion of Bobby Sands Bobby Sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I think Maggie Thatcher is evil incarnate.

 

[HoldemDB9]

MdnightBlue and stephenw am I truly shocked that you would let your family die in order to not put a terrorist through pain (and by terrorist we are speaking of someone who has the ability to save your family, but is refusing). You cant have thought about it enough, I mean seriously. You are basically saying that not letting a terrorist go though pain, is more important than the lives of your family.

You cannot be serious.

 

[HoldemDB9]

False dilemma.


False dilemma.

This is not about how accurate or reliable torture is. This is assuming that it is very reliable and and that your family's lives are in real danger.

 

[3.14]

no need for all those fancy torture technieks just make my sister sing in there general vicinity, with that level of torture even the most hardend criminal breaks down or goes insane

 

[sandandfoam]

You are basically saying that not letting a terrorist go though pain, is more important than the lives of your family.

You cannot be serious.

I am serious. I am 100% against torture.
I don't accept the proposition you put forward as a credible one. 'Torture a terrorist or let my family live' is not a constructive way to examine the diabolical crime of torture.

 

[HoldemDB9]

I am serious. I am 100% against torture.
I don't accept the proposition you put forward as a credible one. 'Torture a terrorist or let my family live' is not a constructive way to examine the diabolical crime of torture.

Why isn't it credible? I'm not saying that if you agree with me on the "save you family" proposition then you must be completely for torture. I myself would not vote for torture if I had the chance to do so today. Its just that in some situations, I would not even have to think twice about being for it.

If your family's lives were in true danger and if torturing a person (who could save them, but is refusing to) could save them, would you say no to torturing them, after all other options have been exhausted or if you were running out of time?