I know it sounds like a no brainer even if you are not all that concerned with being PC but what if for example: " the suspect knew where your child was and could save them by telling you" Would you torture to get your answer?". Well first off I say yes I would if I had any reason to believe that it might be the best way. But I got to thinking that there might be a bigger problem we are having here.
One , we are not talking about soldiers in a war here. Our enemy is a criminal, at best a spy and sabotuer, so he is not covered by the Rules of the Geneva Convention. He is not the official representative of any government so he is not covered by any diplomatic conventions. He is not in most cases either a citizen or legal resident of the United States. So 'legally' we can cut him into tiny pieces and feed him to his friends if we wish. Of course what that would do to our psyche, in most cases would not be worth it but I don't see any real 'legal' impediment.
Two, we are talking at this time about people who have demonstrated every intention of killing any and all of us they can. They do not want us defeated, they want us dead. They cannot be appeased or placated or bargained with because the only thing they want from us is our non-existence.
We can not make them our friends, we cannot 'rehabilitate' them, we cannot save them. The very best we can do is make them ineffective.
El Al has had one sucessful hijack ever and that was in 1968 or so. There are a number of reasons for this, like locked cockpits decades ago, but the biggest one is this. El Al security does not arrest hijackers, they kill them. They do not negotiate except as a method of finding an opportunity for that kill. They do not mourn a lost rehab opportunity and they do not waste sympathy on a dangerous, deadly fool. They do what is necessary to protect potential victims and do not waste time or effort saving the criminal.
Gratuitous degradation such as what was happening at some of the prisons in Iraq is pointless, wasteful, and demeaning to perpetrator as well as the victim. The torture of prisoners that you have had in custody for any length of time is certainly likely to be stupid. What information could they have that is likely to be timely and important ? Torture should never be used as punishment; it may be a tool for information gathering, though frankly, with the drugs currently available, torture is probabaly not a sensible way to get information anyway. But if the physical and/or psycological pain of an enemy is the surest way to get timely, life saving information, I see no need to apoligize.
When you move to harm 'me and mine', I expect myself and my representatives to do whatever we can to stop you.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
First off, torture doesn't work for some very apparent reasons. When you begin to torture people--they have a very strong inclination to tell you what they think you want to hear. That is very often removed from the truth. IOW, they will admit to killing Jimmy Hoffa--even if they have no idea who Hoffa was--simply because they believe you want to that.
Second, the 'ticking time bomb' scenario has never occurred outside of Hollywood. Even our own armed services admit the use of torture doesn't work and is actually detrimental.
Third, the ElAl example is poppycock. The reason why ElAl experiences no hijacking attempts is becausethey screen the bejesus out of passengers. If the IDF has even the slightest suspicion about you--you're not going on that plane.
Fourth, WRT to US torture---the fact is many of the folks we torture aren't belligerants--they're innocent. That puts us in the same company as Saddam.
Secondly, please give an example of one 'innocent' we have tortured. While I am certainly able to believe this is possible and might even go so far as to say probable, I doubt your ability to name one, much less back up the statement "Fourth, WRT to US torture---the fact is many of the folks we torture aren't belligerants--they're innocent. That puts us in the same company as Saddam."
Thirdly "Second, the 'ticking time bomb' scenario has never occurred outside of Hollywood." You know this how?
Fourthly, did I ever say torture was likely to be a good option? NO What I did say is that IF it was the best option with the likely hood of useful results, I see no need to apoligize for it.
. They have 20-years experience in dealing with torture victims from 70 countries. They link to an excellent article as to why torture should never be used – or you can go directly to 5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong.
1. Torture violates the dignity of the human being. True enough I suppose, but then blowing him up at the poling station doesn't do much for a persons dignity either. IF the torture of the criminal could stop the killing of the innocent, I'd have to say go for it. The value some people attach to life when it is human,on that sole basis alone, sometimes amazes me though. Do any of you hunt or fish? Probably. Do you have to, for food? Not likely. Now when was the last time you or anybody you know of was attacked by rabbit or a trout?
The only creature on this planet even capable of 'deserving' death is a human being. The only creature on this earth for which there could possibly be justification of torture is a human being.
You have to wonder about the weird standards of someone that would kill a cow just to eat it but would say it was evil to crush a bombers fingers to find out where he put his bomb. Don't ya think?
2. Torture mistreats the vulnerable and violates the demands of justice. True enough I suppose, but then blowing him up at the poling station doesn't do much for the demands of justice either. IF the torture of the criminal could stop the killing of the innocent, I'd have to say go for it.
3. Authorizing torture trusts government too much. Gotta agree with this one, I think. I don't believe in the death penalty either
4. Torture dehumanizes the torturer. Probably very true. Any of you want to be the one assigned to the job? I know I don't.
5. Torture erodes the character of the nation that tortures. Probably also very true. But then living in fear of planes , trains and busses doesn't do much for the nations character either.
In balance I would say that torture is not a good thing and certainly should never be routine, but does it have a legitimate place? Well possibly.
i have to wonder about someone who puts this into a public forum for everyone to see.
you strike me as one of those people we hear about that liked to pull frogs apart - you know, like george bush.
We are at war, and the enemy, whether he is in uniform or not is out to destroy us. This war will not be won on any battlefield. This war will be won in the minds and hearts of people all over the world. In other words, it is a war that will be won by political action, not military action.
We will not win this war by torturing suspects or by invading countries unilaterally. We will win this war when we enlist virtually every nation, and I don't mean just the governments of those nations, I mean the people in those nations. First, they must believe that our motives are good...that we want peace and economic prosperity and self-determination for all nations. Secondly, they must be convinced that the terrorists, a small minority in their midst, threaten those goals.
As long as the terrorists can find a place to hide and train, and are given money to fund their activities, we will not win this war.
I would submit that the present actions of our government are exactly the opposite of what we need to do to win this war. Torturing prisoners shows the world that we are no better than our enemies.
"please give an example of one 'innocent' we have tortured."
How about Khaled Masri, a German citizen held incommunicado for weeks without charge, then beaten, stripped, shackled and blindfolded and flown to a jail in Afghanistan, run by Afghans but controlled by Americans, where, he alleges, he was tortured. Months later, he was released, without ever hearing what the charges against him might have been.
I expect you might be right Bert. Which means that we won't win this war at all, if that is what this is. Afghanistan, and Iraq will probably not come to believe good of us even with intervention. It is unlikely that Iran, Syria, Jordan or the Palistinians will ever come to believe good of us either. Why would they? What in the world could we ever do that would bring about this change of heart? Why would those whose power comes from promoting this conflict ever willingly let this change come about?
True again, but one might argue also that as long as we must pussyfoot around and treat terrorists with respect and be sure not to violate their right to kill us when they can they will always find a place to hide and money to operate as they are useful to our competitors for power and product.
Joyce, Thanks Thats one and I expect there are more. but does this somehow make Jade's statement (bold is my emphasis)
"Fourth, WRT to US torture---the fact is many of the folks we torture aren't belligerants--they're innocent. That puts us in the same company as Saddam."
as sensible one? I don't think so.
"One of the dead prisoners, known only as Dilawar, died as a result of "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease", according to the death certificate signed by Major Elizabeth Rouse, a pathologist with the Washington-based Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which operates under the auspices of the defense department. The dead man was aged 22 and was a farmer and part-time taxi-driver. He was said to have had an advanced heart condition and blocked arteries." or The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. A death certificate for Dilawar, aged 22, from Yakubi in eastern Afghanistan, and signed by Major Elizabeth Rouse, pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, states that the cause of death was "blunt-force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease".[2] Is this the one you are talking about? His death was wrong, his treatment outrageous and appears to be gratutious cruelty with no attempt or expectation of gathering information, and the punisment meted out to his abusers seems small to me, but I see nothing about 'liquified legs"! A lot of the game 'telephone" seems to happen on this topic.'
Killing is killing and that is a main purpose of war. The more terrible the death, the more likely it will affect others and deter them from fighting against us. And let us not forget, the surest way to ensure that any particular person will no longer take up arms against us or capture any of us is to kill him. Death is a permanent detriment.