This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes, yes by all means. Yes, ALWAYS.
Torture produces info, sure, but what kind of info? If you were captured, say by one of the terrorists we're fighting now, and tortured for info that you didn't have what would you say? You'd say whatever they want so they'd stop hurting you, it's been proven over and over again.
Lets not forget that we're fighting for humanity with these terrorists, but if we lose our humanity in the process than how on Earth are we better than them?
Yes, yes by all means. Yes, ALWAYS.
Torture produces info, sure, but what kind of info? If you were captured, say by one of the terrorists we're fighting now, and tortured for info that you didn't have what would you say? You'd say whatever they want so they'd stop hurting you, it's been proven over and over again.
Lets not forget that we're fighting for humanity with these terrorists, but if we lose our humanity in the process than how on Earth are we better than them?
TenP
Really?
We are better than them for the sake that we are not killing them; terrorists would find info and than kill. IMO We should hurt them to the point that they tell us what we need to know and than make sure what they are saying is true before the terrorist is let go.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]Yes I think its always wrong.KG86
Torture in any circumstance is wrong.KG86
Why?
See what TenP said, he seems to have the same opinion I do.
:P Then see my response to his post.
Yes, it is always wrong. It is inhumane and morally unacceptable IMO, and something which our governments should not support. The end does not justify the means!gbpman630
I loosely disagree with this. :P
[QUOTE="gbpman630"]Yes, it is always wrong. It is inhumane and morally unacceptable IMO, and something which our governments should not support. The end does not justify the means!battlefront23
I loosely disagree with this. :P
Under what circumstances would you disagree?[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]Yes, it is always wrong. It is inhumane and morally unacceptable IMO, and something which our governments should not support. The end does not justify the means!gbpman630
I loosely disagree with this. :P
Under what circumstances would you disagree?National security, if you're dealing with a terrorist, etc. Basically, REALLY bad dudes. :P
It is wrong, cruel and inhumane. The governments can feed us this "national security" bs - but lets face it: no one should be subjected to that kind of treatment and often that supposed national security is just used as an excuse for people to hurt others and get some sick pleasure from it. Who are terrorists exactly? People who don't share your beliefs? People who want to defend their homelands just as you do? Just think about whether you would endorse torture if "those aliens" "those terrorists" captured you because you were going to attack them first - it would be their security. Imagine if they subjected you to this fascist rubbish:
So what do you think? Is torture ALWAYS wrong? Or are there exceptions? IMO I think in matters of national security, if there are no other ways, torture should be used. Otherwise I don't think it's right; although roughing up a guy, IMO, is not torture. battlefront23
Torture is always wrong. It's well-known that torture results in highly unreliable information, since the person who is being tortured will usually say pretty much ANYTHING just to get the torture to stop.
And BTW...for people who say that waterboarding is not torture...I bet I could get you to say otherwise if I were to waterboard you for two minutes.
Really?
We are better than them for the sake that we are not killing them; terrorists would find info and than kill. IMO We should hurt them to the point that they tell us what we need to know and than make sure what they are saying is true before the terrorist is let go.
battlefront23
The type of torture that America is currently undergoing is called Waterboarding. It's when the torturer puts a towel on the torturee's head (Or puts his head in a burlap sack) and then periodically dumps water on the torturee's face to simulate drowning. The Japanese were notorious for doing this in World War 2, and you know what happened to the people in charge of it? They were executed (hanged to be exact) for war crimes by the Americans.
As I said before, torture produces fake information. It's an unreliable and inhumane way of dealing with the enemy.
Saying we're better than them because we don't kill these torture victims would be similar to saying "We're better because we only cut off all of his fingers instead of his entire hand." There's a great quote said by Friedrich Nietsche on this matter, and it goes...
Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one.Friedrich Nietsche
[QUOTE="gbpman630"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]Yes, it is always wrong. It is inhumane and morally unacceptable IMO, and something which our governments should not support. The end does not justify the means!battlefront23
I loosely disagree with this. :P
Under what circumstances would you disagree?National security, if you're dealing with a terrorist, etc. Basically, REALLY bad dudes. :P
Well, that's what the whole debate around the torture is about. Terrorists and supposed terrorists are the only people our government has been torturing. If you agree that they should torture terrorists, then you disagree with my statement.[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="gbpman630"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]Yes, it is always wrong. It is inhumane and morally unacceptable IMO, and something which our governments should not support. The end does not justify the means!gbpman630
I loosely disagree with this. :P
Under what circumstances would you disagree?National security, if you're dealing with a terrorist, etc. Basically, REALLY bad dudes. :P
Well, that's what the whole debate around the torture is about. Terrorists and supposed terrorists are the only people our government has been torturing. If you agree that they should torture terrorists, then you disagree with my statement.Not necessarily as I never specified who would be tortured. I think rather than waterboarding terrorists we should just beat up the SOBs.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Really?
We are better than them for the sake that we are not killing them; terrorists would find info and than kill. IMO We should hurt them to the point that they tell us what we need to know and than make sure what they are saying is true before the terrorist is let go.
TenP
The type of torture that America is currently undergoing is called Waterboarding. It's when the torturer puts a towel on the torturee's head (Or puts his head in a burlap sack) and then periodically dumps water on the torturee's face to simulate drowning. The Japanese were notorious for doing this in World War 2, and you know what happened to the people in charge of it? They were executed (hanged to be exact) for war crimes by the Americans.
As I said before, torture produces fake information. It's an unreliable and inhumane way of dealing with the enemy.
Saying we're better than them because we don't kill these torture victims would be similar to saying "We're better because we only cut off all of his fingers instead of his entire hand." There's a great quote said by Friedrich Nietsche on this matter, and it goes...
Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one.Friedrich Nietsche
I responded to that in my initial quote. Anyway sometimes monsters are needed to kill other monsters. Sometimes the noble way causes more people to die than the dirty way.
[QUOTE="TenP"]Yes, yes by all means. Yes, ALWAYS.
Torture produces info, sure, but what kind of info? If you were captured, say by one of the terrorists we're fighting now, and tortured for info that you didn't have what would you say? You'd say whatever they want so they'd stop hurting you, it's been proven over and over again.
Lets not forget that we're fighting for humanity with these terrorists, but if we lose our humanity in the process than how on Earth are we better than them?
battlefront23
Really?
We are better than them for the sake that we are not killing them; terrorists would find info and than kill. IMO We should hurt them to the point that they tell us what we need to know and than make sure what they are saying is true before the terrorist is let go.
And what if what they say is not true? How do you know that they were lying in order to protect their secrets, rather than lying just so that you stop torturing them?
How do you know that they actually HAVE the information that you are repeatedly torturing them for?
Or are you okay with torturing people in order to make them give information that they truly do not have?
On a side note, there used to be this thing that they'd do over in England when a person was suspected of being a witch. See, laws at the time said that you couldn't try a person for a crime unless they pled guilty or innocent. So what do you do when the suspected which refuses to make a plea? You torture the **** out of them until they make a plea. And then, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, they still die, since the test was to tie rocks to their feet and throw them in the river. If they sink and drown, they were innocent. And if they float, then they are witches. And the penalty for being a witch was then to get burned alive.
No. When it comes to torturing an innocent then yes i can see where it is wrong. But you catch a terrorist. Torture the person. If they were to capture any one of us they would torture us to heck and back before killing us. Why grant them life if they wouldnt do it to us. I would torture them to an inch of their life and let them live and do it all over again the next day for the things they do to captured people.kgansor
So...you're advocating torturing people for FUN?
I know I mentioned that I was going to bed, but the thoughts of this scenario was in my mind for so long that I couldn't sleep without writing it down. Here are reasons why I think torture is wrong. For this case, I'll take the identity of a terrorist.
I will say anything when I'm under torture.
When I'm subject to torture, the government generally encites that they will stop torturing if I tell them what they need to know, in the hope that I will actually cave in. What I know is much different than what they know so I can easily mix facts here and there, such as people I've met, places I've been, and actions I've taken a part of. Because the government is searching for information, they are just as likely to cave in to me. They don't know what I don't know, and that's what they're trying to figure out, so it's not surprising if I tell them a fabricated account of events that they'll buy in. They don't know what I hold, and lie detectors are only reliable to a certain degree. As a result, they may take in another prisoner, who I knew was innocent, but they would have his innocence on their hands.
It's counter-intuitive, but I think the situations are reversed. The situation is made where I'm supposed to cave in, but it is really they, the government, who can be fooled most easily. Additionally, this buys time, so if the ticking time bomb situation were to be employed, then I would be effectively wasting their time for them to chase ghosts. It would play in my favor.
Other techniques may be more effective.
If I go through due process and I'm guaranteed a life sentence or capital punishment, then I'll cave. Torture is far worse than sitting in a prison cell or death. If I'm guaranteed what little liberty I have left by rotting in my cell, then I am more inclined to give in the information. However, this is dependent on how strongly I stand for a cause.
I may not have the information the government seeks.
I may be a terrorist, but I may not necessarily be the head-honcho of the group. How does the government know if I was included with all the details of the group or if I was informed on a need-to-know basis? Any truthful information that I have may no longer be applicable because what the government needs to prevent a terrorist attack is not what I have.
It increases the case for our cause.
We're terrorists (and misguided ones at that) and torturing the innocent (which could be a result of my first paragraph in my first point) only strengthens our cause. It only gives us the right to torture innocent U.S. lives in return.
Other nations follow U.S.'s actions.
Although there is a lot of anti-American sentiment, a lot of countries do look at the U.S. to determine what to do, since they are arguably the world's largest superpower. If they ignore their own Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, then likewise, other nations will follow their lead. The U.S., in effect, will give up the higher moral ground. This puts us on the same level as terrorists.
I responded to that in my initial quote. Anyway sometimes monsters are needed to kill other monsters. Sometimes the noble way causes more people to die than the dirty way.
battlefront23
Very well, so you're fine with America, the greatest country on this Earth, stooping to their level to fight them? You're fine with our good name being muddied? You're fine with terrorizing under the name of Anti-terrorism? You're fine with being the monster instead of the righteous one? You're fine with doing the deeds we condemned 60 years ago? You're fine with doing all this to get info that in most cases is probably false?
You responded to my point being false in your earlier post, yes. But say, for instance, what if the person is just a grunt in the organization and doesn't know anything? What would they tell you? What if the person we capture isn't even a terrorist? How would we know?
I'm just going to start posting articles.
Article 1
Information from an FBI interrogator: It doesn't work
Article 3
Taken from Article 3:
"It is partly a question of the accuracy of statements made under torture. Take the case of the Peruvian student Magdalena Monteza, abducted as an alleged subversive. After being tortured and repeatedly raped by her captors, she admitted to being part of a revolutionary cell. In the film State of Fear, she describes her story: "I'd never had sex before. I was a virgin, 19 years old… I couldn't take the torture so I decided to sign. I confessed to things I never did… If they had sentenced me to death I wouldn't have cared." The Canadian-Briton Bill Sampson was repeatedly tortured in a Saudi jail. Under torture, he admitted to being part of a network responsible for bombings and murder, thus enabling the authorities to pretend that there is no homegrown terrorism in Saudi Arabia."
The book 1984 is another example of the immorality of torture.
Yes, it's always wrong, except maybe in the rather unlikely case that you are doing it to get out of being tortured yourself, because I don't think there are too many people who have that kind of willpower if nothing else.
Strictly speaking, I don't belive in an absolute "right" or "wrong," but I am definitely of the conviction that it is wrong.For governments, armies, and organizations its wrong.
But if someone like, for example, kidnapped my sister....I would torture that sucker 24/7 until he passed out, wake him back up, and torture him some more.
For governments, armies, and organizations its wrong.
But if someone like, for example, kidnapped my sister....I would torture that sucker 24/7 until he passed out, wake him back up, and torture him some more.
mrbojangles25
Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong, or that it would be wrong but you'd do it anyway?
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]For governments, armies, and organizations its wrong.
But if someone like, for example, kidnapped my sister....I would torture that sucker 24/7 until he passed out, wake him back up, and torture him some more.
MrGeezer
Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong, or that it would be wrong but you'd do it anyway?
its wrong for governments to do it. Yes. End of the story from my point of view.
As for individuals, well, lets just say that if my neighbors family got killed but he found the guy that did it, brought him home, and I heard screams coming from the garage I would turn a blind eye.
But ya, I would think its wrong...but you know, doing something wrong makes you feel good quite often.
*lol i suddenly thought of that rapper on the news show bieng like "I dont snitch!"
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]For governments, armies, and organizations its wrong.
But if someone like, for example, kidnapped my sister....I would torture that sucker 24/7 until he passed out, wake him back up, and torture him some more.
mrbojangles25
Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong, or that it would be wrong but you'd do it anyway?
its wrong for governments to do it. Yes. End of the story from my point of view.
As for individuals, well, lets just say that if my neighbors family got killed but he found the guy that did it, brought him home, and I heard screams coming from the garage I would turn a blind eye.
But ya, I would think its wrong...but you know, doing something wrong makes you feel good quite often.
How would it make you feel if you later found out that your neighbor accidentally tortured an innocent man?
Or does your neighbor have a judge, jury, and defense attorneys hidden away in his basement, to ensure that if he ever decides to torture a man, that that man receives due process and is actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty?
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]For governments, armies, and organizations its wrong.
But if someone like, for example, kidnapped my sister....I would torture that sucker 24/7 until he passed out, wake him back up, and torture him some more.
MrGeezer
Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong, or that it would be wrong but you'd do it anyway?
its wrong for governments to do it. Yes. End of the story from my point of view.
As for individuals, well, lets just say that if my neighbors family got killed but he found the guy that did it, brought him home, and I heard screams coming from the garage I would turn a blind eye.
But ya, I would think its wrong...but you know, doing something wrong makes you feel good quite often.
How would it make you feel if you later found out that your neighbor accidentally tortured an innocent man?
Or does your neighbor have a judge, jury, and defense attorneys hidden away in his basement, to ensure that if he ever decides to torture a man, that that man receives due process and is actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty?
in my example I didnt reall think you would make a bunch of theoretical stuff like that. I said he caught the guy that did it, and made him suffer.
As for your possibilities, well...I dont know truthfully. Part of me says every human deserves to die with dignity, as quickly as possible. The other half says there is no afterlife, only nothingness, and as a result the last moments of some bastard's life should be as unpleasant as can be.
With that said, sometimes there are moments where there is no doubt, where there is no question of whether a man is guilty or innocent. And if he did something so terrible to you he arguably deserves it.
Think of it like Dexter. You do your research, use science and deduction and whatnot (i.e. get facts) to prove without a doubt he or she is guilty. Only instead of scrathing their cheek and stabbing them, you make them suffer.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment