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?

 

No, because it wouldn't work. Once you kill 2 you strengthen the resolve of 1.

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?

 

As to your first question, do you think the folks doing the torturing would continue to use torture if they hadn't been getting reliable info from it? Common sense would indicate that we had been getting a fairly high level of reliable info from the torturing if we continued to use those techniques, wouldn't it? If you disagree with that, then it seems to me that you are in effect stating that the people doing the torturing were doing it just for "fun", which I doubt is your position.

No, because it wouldn't work. Once you kill 2 you strengthen the resolve of 1.

 

He has resolve while seeing the gord of his buddy on the table?

 

Lets add one more element. Lets say that after the beheading of #2 #1 loses his resolve and sings like a bird giving us the info.

 

Are we as a country OK with the decapitation?

He has resolve while seeing the gord of his buddy on the table?

 

Lets add one more element. Lets say that after the beheading of #2 #1 loses his resolve and sings like a bird giving us the info.

 

Are we as a country OK with the decapitation?

 

 

In situations like that yes. I know were that me I know my life would be forfeit no matter what I do, so why would I give them the satisfaction of cracking?

 

 

But in this hypothetical scenario:

 

Death of 1 person to save how many lives?

 

Sorry it's a numbers game plain and simple. If, by killing him, we save just 2 lives then his was worth it. 2-1 ratio. If we save more than that then his value just went up.

As to your first question, do you think the folks doing the torturing would continue to use torture if they hadn't been getting reliable info from it? Common sense would indicate that we had been getting a fairly high level of reliable info from the torturing if we continued to use those techniques, wouldn't it? If you disagree with that, then it seems to me that you are in effect stating that the people doing the torturing were doing it just for "fun", which I doubt is your position.

Perhaps, but the attitude of many in this thread is that "well they do it, so why shouldn't we." That is a problematic position...

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?

 

Obviously Clyde it's a tough issue (and you know it). Which is why I don't feel fit to judge any one who has had to make that decision.

 

If someone kidnapped your wife and son and buried them with a 30 minute supply of oxygen, and you captured the guy with 5 minutes of oxygen remaining, could you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you would not use torture if necessary to get the needed info to save your wife's and son's lives? If you can legally shoot an intruder to protect your loved ones lifes, is it illogical that you could be prosecuted for sticking a gun to the head of the kidnapper and threaten to kill them or use waterboarding, in order to find out the needed info to save your love ones?

Perhaps, but the attitude of many in this thread is that "well they do it, so why shouldn't we." That is a problematic position...

 

I don't care what the attitude of many on this thread is; it's irrelevant to the real issue. Torture works which is why it's used by the people charged with protecting America and Americans. It's not used for sadistic reasons.

Obviously Clyde it's a tough issue (and you know it). Which is why I don't feel fit to judge any one who has had to make that decision.

 

If someone kidnapped your wife and son and buried them with a 30 minute supply of oxygen, and you captured the guy with 5 minutes of oxygen remaining, could you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you would not use torture if necessary to get the needed info to save your wife's and son's lives? If you can legally shoot an intruder to protect your loved ones lifes, is it illogical that you could be prosecuted for sticking a gun to the head of the kidnapper and threaten to kill them or use waterboarding, in order to find out the needed info to save your love ones?

 

I'll assume the above is rhetorical.

I'll assume the above is rhetorical.

 

You can assume anything you want: answer the question how you think would react in that situation.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought you were going to say something about watching Kevin Costner act.

You can assume anything you want: answer the question how you think would react in that situation.

 

That WAS my answer. I thought it was a question that didn't really have to be answered to know my answer.

What about the precident that is set with our future enemies? Not Al Queda, but those that we have yet to have a problem with? Will they use our examples of how to treat our people that they capture?

 

For me, it comes down to what is right for ME to do, not what has been done to me.

What about the precident that is set with our future enemies? Not Al Queda, but those that we have yet to have a problem with? Will they use our examples of how to treat our people that they capture?

 

For me, it comes down to what is right for ME to do, not what has been done to me.

 

In everyday living I agree with the bolded.

War, weather formally declared or not, changes things.

That WAS my answer. I thought it was a question that didn't really have to be answered to know my answer.

 

I'd like you to spell out your answer so I can then use it against you.

I don't care what the attitude of many on this thread is; it's irrelevant to the real issue. Torture works which is why it's used by the people charged with protecting America and Americans. It's not used for sadistic reasons.

After some thought and reading, I think I agree with you. There are four reasons for torture. Three of which are inappropriate in eveyr single scenario: for extracting confessions of guilt; as a legally authorized punishment for criminals; and illegally, for sheer vengeance.

 

As for the fourth- for extracting information- I think it is acceptable- not desirable, but acceptable- so long as it works and there is no sense of vengeance involved.