Should toturing be allowed?

[SleeplessWanderer]

U.S. Government tortures Americans

Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago, was a whistle-blower who tipped off the F.B.I. to suspicious activity at the company where he worked, including possible weapons trafficking. He was arrested and held for 97 days — shackled and blindfolded, prevented from sleeping by blaring music and round-the-clock lights.

Read more here


Should it be allowed?

 

[Phenom]

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

 

[rokin91]

I don't think that extreme torturing is the right way to find out the information needed, since it is cruel and painful. There are other ways of finding the truth.

Torturing is a very promising way of getting what is needed... but it's cruel!

Maybe torturing should be done to a certain extent.

 

[Phenom]

yes I do agree with you on this one.

but if you're loved ones are at stake

I Wonder how far you'd go

 

[FellowCitizen]

I think torturing is necessary if the national security is at risk

 

[Beatleworld]

yeah i agree, torturing is necessary for national security. however, when it's about something little, i suppose it's not good.

 

[n0spam4me]

Dig a little deeper people .....

There is a SERIOUS problem here, in that a suspect, is judged to have INFORMATION that is vital to (whatever...) and so said suspect is subjected to all sorts of brutal treatement at the hands of the people (or their agents) who have judged this individual to have somekinda INFORMATION.
This is a VERY dangerious state of affairs, The suspect will keep telling his captors "I have NO INFORMATION, I know NOTHING of what you seek" and the interigator, will make a judgement that the suspect is lying and administer torture, HOWEVER, what if the interigator is WRONG and they really and truly have the WRONG person in custody?

Check out the GENEVA CONVENTION and note that because the U.S.A. has signed on to these agreements, these rules have force of LAW in the U.S.A. and apply not only to US citizens but to anyone that any agent of the U.S.A. may capture.

GEORGE W. BUSH is an outlaw!

Check out the Military Commissions (un-natural) ACT
and look up what EX POST FACTO law is!

Interesting stuff, no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[Freethinker]

The argument for torture is that when time is crucial it is the most expediant means to find the truth. In fact torture is the most expediant means the get the torture victm to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear.Allthough the two are not mutually exclusive they are not the same either.
It has always seemed to me that those who take a pro-torture stand are curiously a litte too anxious to inflict pain on another. They take great delght in discribing the minute details of the unlikly scenario as well as the sadisticly well thought out means by which the would like to extract the supposedly time sensitive information.
They just sound more like sadeists looking for an excuse to apply their twisted interests than someone looking for a successful outcome to a bad situation.
I would ask anyone to whom torture sounds like a good idea,to re examine their own dark motivations before expressing their agreement with techniques that not only degrade the morallity of those who condone it, but the practice of wich has shown not to produce desired results.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

The argument for torture is that when time is crucial it is the most expediant means to find the truth. In fact torture is the most expediant means the get the torture victm to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear.Allthough the two are not mutually exclusive they are not the same either.
It has always seemed to me that those who take a pro-torture stand are curiously a litte too anxious to inflict pain on another. They take great delght in discribing the minute details of the unlikly scenario as well as the sadisticly well thought out means by which the would like to extract the supposedly time sensitive information.
They just sound more like sadeists looking for an excuse to apply their twisted interests than someone looking for a successful outcome to a bad situation.
I would ask anyone to whom torture sounds like a good idea,to re examine their own dark motivations before expressing their agreement with techniques that not only degrade the morallity of those who condone it, but the practice of wich has shown not to produce desired results.

I too have found that many who espouse torture are really just looking to exact some sort of revenge, punishment or to gain a feeling of power over another human being.

 

[top gun]

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

I understand what you're saying here... if all those things happened in just that way... your wife or child... the person WAS part of the crime... all these things being facts makes some difference in the thought process.

But I think we're talking about in general... and as far as an interogation tool in the military. In those cases I think you have to say no. And the reason is to try and set a standard that other countries must follow for your captured soldiers or face the real possibility of war crimes charges.

 

[dahermit]

Torture=murder?

If we accept torture as a legitimate way of extracting information then what happens if the tortured person dies from the stress of being tortured? Now it would seem that you would have to justify murder as a means of extracting information also.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

How easily it appears that most of you entirely Glossed over the EXAMPLE as given and chose to respond to something else instead ...

one of you even went as far as to totally dismiss it in favor of you OWN scenario
the story here is about an AMERICAN citizen who was a whistleblower and was HARRASSED and Tortured for being a whistleblower

not killing anyone or raping them or an alqueada operative An American Citizen a NAVY veteran no less......

is it right? that was the question asked

 

[top gun]

How easily it appears that most of you entirely Glossed over the EXAMPLE as given and chose to respond to something else instead ...

one of you even went as far as to totally dismiss it in favor of you OWN scenario
the story here is about an AMERICAN citizen who was a whistleblower and was HARRASSED and Tortured for being a whistleblower

not killing anyone or raping them or an alqueada operative An American Citizen a NAVY veteran no less......

is it right? that was the question asked

I think this is what happened. There was an original post as you've stated. But then Phenom (an Administrator) gave another different scenario. People then responded to both. I think you can see what happened below. It wasn't Glossing over. It was just replying to different scenarios.

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Well in Response to the ORIGINAL post and in respecting that author..... I answer the question with a Resounding NO, it is NOT RIGHT for this to happen to an American citizen....I feel that the lines have deliberatly been blurred, and this is going to only get worse as time goes on

and the American people are silent................or they read or hear about it, and they simply dont care about this information......so it will continue

 

[lipmonkey]

I don't feel torture is right and I have read few studies that suggest it isn't an effective method of getting reliable information, as the victim tells his interrogators anything they want to hear just to get them to stop.