I advocate it if it is an effective and accurate means of garnering information. If the information can be more quickly and accurately obtained otherwise I would prefer that method.

 

I don't care how the information is extracted, as long as the method used is the best method available.

Let me re-state then. It makes us no better than the terrorists.

 

It is precisely what they want from us. They simply don't have the means to destroy us militarily, but they can effectuate the subverting of our principles and values.

Torture in the news again.

 

The thinking seems to be that if we (U.S.) get good info then the torture the informant has to go through is worth it. I get that.

 

I do wonder, though, how far each of you are willing to go in determining what is acceptable. Is there a limit? Am I correct that the end justifies the means?

 

Are you asking for opinions? Or are you asking for where the gov't. actually draws the line?

 

Because I beleive that you should never let them (your enemy) know where you draw the line.

Are you alright with killing if it leads to the prevention of an attack?

 

Secondly, we always hear Americans say "We're Americans. We're better than that." Is that no longer true?

 

We used to be able to say that and stand proud while no cameras or reporters were allowed in Guantanimo and other places where the real dirty work was done. IMO - the dirty work has to be done and the press should not be invited.

We used to be able to say that and stand proud while no cameras or reporters were allowed in Guantanimo and other places where the real dirty work was done. IMO - the dirty work has to be done and the press should not be invited.

 

Agreed.

It is precisely what they want from us. They simply don't have the means to destroy us militarily, but they can effectuate the subverting of our principles and values.

That's where you're wrong. Its not what they want from us. They don't understand phrases like "compassionate war" and "Geneva Convention." They think we're too weak to do what needs to be done. We made the same mistake when we surrendered the Philipines to the Japanese. They hated those who surrendered because it showed a lack of honor. The saying "know thine enemy" doesn't mean know who they are. It means understand them; know why and how they fight; understand what being a warrier means to them; and, learn what it takes to break them.

That's where you're wrong. Its not what they want from us. They don't understand phrases like "compassionate war" and "Geneva Convention." They think we're too weak to do what needs to be done. We made the same mistake when we surrendered the Philipines to the Japanese. They hated those who surrendered because it showed a lack of honor. The saying "know thine enemy" doesn't mean know who they are. It means understand them; know why and how they fight; understand what being a warrier means to them; and, learn what it takes to break them.

 

As far as history and what not goes, that's why I think it was sooooo hard for us to be prepared for the Japanese. Being a warrior for them had a vastly different meaning in comparison to the US. I read an article earlier this year about the extremely high rate of suicide that Japan was dealing with and how it was considered honorable by many if it meant you were keeping from being a burden to others. Way different than in the US, where many feel it's a right to be a burden to otehrs. Just completely different cultures.

1. Does torture guarantee that we get correct information from detainees?

 

2. Since many of those supporting torture are Christians here, let me ask if the ends justify the means. Is abortion OK if the baby is to live a tough life? Is the death penalty OK even if, since we are not omnipotent like God, we can never know for sure? If I think my neighbor is a pedophile, without any proof, is it OK for me to kill him, to prevent a (very uncertain) immoral act from happening?

1. Does torture guarantee that we get correct information from detainees?

 

2. Since many of those supporting torture are Christians here, let me ask if the ends justify the means. Is abortion OK if the baby is to live a tough life? Is the death penalty OK even if, since we are not omnipotent like God, we can never know for sure? If I think my neighbor is a pedophile, without any proof, is it OK for me to kill him, to prevent a (very uncertain) immoral act from happening?

 

Hopefully.

I think all bets were off once the first video of an American getting their head cut was released.

 

I agree with Peprock. What is the best method to get info.

Are you alright with killing if it leads to the prevention of an attack?

 

Secondly, we always hear Americans say "We're Americans. We're better than that." Is that no longer true?

 

If you read up on prior wars, we're not better than that. Torture has been a method we've used before, it just didn't get the publicity it now gets.

1. Does torture guarantee that we get correct information from detainees?

 

2. Since many of those supporting torture are Christians here, let me ask if the ends justify the means. Is abortion OK if the baby is to live a tough life? Is the death penalty OK even if, since we are not omnipotent like God, we can never know for sure? If I think my neighbor is a pedophile, without any proof, is it OK for me to kill him, to prevent a (very uncertain) immoral act from happening?

 

I believe that would be called a conundrum....One stance can't be supported by the other. Just like some people on here quote scripture then reference hating those that disagree with them.

Torture is wrong plain and simple whoever does it; it doesn't guarantee accurate information, makes us look bad and aids terrorist organizations in thier recruiting efforts.

I suppose those of you who advocate it, if you were ever held prisoner you would think it would be perfectly reasonable for our enemy to torture you if it "would prevent an attack on thier nation"?

I believe that would be called a conundrum....One stance can't be supported by the other. Just like some people on here quote scripture then reference hating those that disagree with them.

Torture is wrong plain and simple whoever does it; it doesn't guarantee accurate information, makes us look bad and aids terrorist organizations in thier recruiting efforts.

I suppose those of you who advocate it, if you were ever held prisoner you would think it would be perfectly reasonable for our enemy to torture you if it "would prevent an attack on thier nation"?

 

 

As far as I am concerned the end justifies the means. That said, if torture is not the fastest, most effective and accurate method of garnering intelligence then I do not want it used.

 

Of course I have never understood the concept of trying to keep the "moral high ground" where armed conflict is concerned anyway.

Are you asking for opinions? Or are you asking for where the gov't. actually draws the line?

 

Because I beleive that you should never let them (your enemy) know where you draw the line.

 

Your opinion on what's acceptable.

Lets say we've got two detainees and we know that #1 has info on an upcoming terrorist act in the U.S. He's not budging, though, and we can't get the needed info to thwart the supposed attack. To "encourage" him to change his stance, the interrogators pull out a sword , decapitate #2, and then tell #1 that that's what awaits him if he doesn't start talking.

 

Acceptable?