Everyone's hands are covered in blood, regardless if you are directly responsible or indirectly, you act like torture is something extremely unethical of which we are incapable of doing... yet when you place sanctions… for example on Iraq after the first Gulf War, what were we doing, what's the end result of it? It's torture, you are hurting the weak, the poor, to get results, you are looking for the person running the country to get over thrown or for the person to change his or her policies, in the end you are causing suffering for some kind of result. Remember the person running a country does not exactly represent the people in that nation - as you've stated earlier about Mr. Bush and his gang….Why did Iraq have to get sanctions? Was it the people of Iraq who invaded Kuwait? Deckard, nobody is ethically above another, we are not going to change as people, we are going to torture if we believe it's going to help our cause, that's just how we are…......in the end we are all the same, dictators and all.
I call BULLSH!T! We are the United States of America. We are supposed to be the world leader in human rights and for decades have claimed to be a more moral society than any other on the planet. We invaded Iraq because we claimed that (the third or fourth reason given anyway) we would be able to provide for a better govorned country than Saddam Hussein. He was called a murderous dictator who tortures and rapes and gasses his people indiscriminately. Since then, we have shown that we are no better at govorning the people of Iraq, but that we are also murderous invaders who torture and rape. I suppose you can point to the absence of gassings, but to be fair, the last time Saddam did it was right after we sold him the gas to do it. And people accuse the left of immoral behavior and thought. Geez.
Saddam was more direct, he did what he had to do to get the results he wanted, he got rid of the people to remain in power. You can do things in a shady way or in a direct way it's a matter of choice, which method are you willing to live with. You don't exactly remain a superpower in this world w/o getting your hands a little dirty, the world's just not setup like that....it's a cruel world. History has shown us that, time and time again. It's not just suddenly going to change.
By the way my point is not that the U.S behaves the same as a dictator, event though it may seem I am... my point is that when you are trying to fight for something, whatever it may be, you have to resort to tactics that that have the same results as of what a dictator might consider to do openly, even though your action might have good intentions. That's partly due to how the wrold is setup. So in the end you and the other person end up in the same boat....does that make any sense? Hopefully it does
If you have the time to wait and see if what they've told you was a lie then there are probably other ways that you could get the same information without torture. In order for there even to be a scenario like you mentioned there would have to be nobody else who knew the whereabouts, or identity of the associates, following or wiretapping the suspect would be far more likely to positively ID any associates and lead you to the whole mess of them. If you know someone is connected it is far more accurate and better to let him lead you to his contacts than trying to torture them for it. It is also more moral. Your scenario works in films and movies but just isn't realistic.
I'm not advocating the wide use of torture. But if you capture someone who is part of a conspiracy to say launch a suicide attack, then you have to consider it. If the person refuses to co-operate, and time is essential, then I don't think any means of interrogation should be out of question. You have to get the guy to talk and co-operate. It's probably a rare instance that torture should be used, and certainly as a last resort. But I wouldn't take that away as a tool. And I don't think anyone can speak to what the most effective means of extracting information is. I don't think it's cut and dry. Every situation is different, why not allow the interrogators to have some say? Especially when it concerns national security.
It's a question of do the ends justify the means. A dictator will use torture for a 101 reasons, mostly to maintain his own personal power. But while our gov't hands are very dirty to be sure, I don't think you can compare them to a Saddam Hussein. It's like comparing a seriel murder to a guy who lies on his taxes. They both have done something immoral, but the extent or degree isn't the same. Using torture to prevent the death of others is different then using it to find out who else is a critic. Just as it's one thing to shot someone for money (a clearly immoral act), it's not to shoot someone to prevent that person from killing others. It's just not black and white.
Were those the same decades during which the government was actively participating in denying a segment of its own citizens their basic 'human rights', or willfully ignoring the 'tyranny' of the majority..you know, with Blacks getting publicly lynched with entire towns gathering to cheer it on?
If time is essential then he could lie, and the attack won't be stopped. Torture is not effective, and the time is essential situation isn't realistic. Odds are other people know of the attack, and it would be far more effective to go after them and play the two off of each other. I can not think of any reason why torture would ever be a viable option.
It's not unequivocal that torture is not effective in gathering information that may save lives. There's a famous case in the Phillipines where a man after one month of torture finally revealed numerous plots, including one to assisinate the pope. Not just one plot, but he sang like a bird and gave it all out. Now, I'll agree the best way to get information out of someone is to treat them humanely and kindly. But if all else fails, the THREAT of being tortured can often yield information in and of itself. Given the choice between reward or harsh punishment, many will yield information that's useful. While torture is extreme, we're dealing with an extreme enemy. i think it's dangerous to tie the hands of those who need to do their job in order to protect the country. I feel it's unrealistic to say torture has no purpose or use. Or to conclude that someone won't yield information they know about a plot through torture. I don't think that's been proven. I think a lot of anti-torture people support that though just because they are anti-torture. That being said, I also think that using torture against someone without clear knowledge that they know something is trully morally wrong. You have to know that the subject KNOWS the information you are requesting, otherwise you will in fact get a bunch of garbage. So when and how torture should be used? When a suspect is clearly involved and knows information. He should initially be treated well and given a chance to provide the information. Positive incentives. But it should be made clear that they need to get that information at all costs. If the subject is not providing the information, every non-torture technique should be used. If all else fails, the subject should be allowed to know that he may be tortured, but they would rather not and give him another chance to co-operate. Then, in this situation, I think torture can be effective. The subject knows now that the torture is a last resort, and it's only being done to extract information. In this case, there's probably a higher liklihood of getting the truth. And, all means have been exhausted. Therefore, I think if done skillyfully, there's no reason why not to use torture. Should a U.S. citizen be the subject of torture if they fail to reveal information tied to national security and saving lives? Absolutely.
The Constitution and the rule of law is worth much more than 3,000 lives. Shame on you for letting terrorists corrupt what you should be standing for as an American.
new yorker, do you enjoy being wrong all the time? pretty much everything you are saying goes against the word of admirals, military judges, jag officers, cia counter-terrorism experts, intelligence officers and the army's own field manual. i know that you just like to argue for the sake of arging, but how can you continue to ignore the facts? Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy "The United States has been a strong, unwavering advocate for human rights and the rule of law for as long as you and I have been alive. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that just because we are in a battle with some terrible people. In fact, in a war like this, when we are tempted to respond in kind, we must hold ever more dearly to the values that make us Americans. Torture, or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" conduct, are not part of our national character. Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but it's not reliable. Eventually, if you don't accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop. It may or may not be true. If you torture 100 people, you'll get 100 different stories. If you gain the confidence of 100 people, you may get one valuable story." (Legal Affairs "Debate Club" January 27, 2005) Bob Baer, former CIA official "And torture -- I just don't think it really works. I think it works for the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Saudis, who want to scare the hell out of people. But you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you." (Interview with Slate, May 12, 2004) Lawrence Korb, former Naval Intelligence officer and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration "The highest levels of the U.S. military, the Defense Department, and the White House must be held accountable for putting our troops at greater risk and diminishing America's moral authority across the globe." (Article co-written by John Halpin, Center for American Progress) Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear." (60 minutes "CIA flying suspects to Torture?" March 6, 2005) Dan Coleman, retired FBI agent "It?s human nature. People don?t cooperate with you unless they have some reason to." He added, "Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul." (The New Yorker "Outsourcing Torture" by Jane Mayer) Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 "The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." Declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, responding to the question of whether FBI in agents Guantanamo agents were instructed to "stand clear" due to interrogation techniques utilized by Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security "Our formal guidance has always been that all personnel conduct themselves in interviews in the manner that they would in the field. <redacted> along with the FBI advised that the LEA [Law Enforcement Agencies] at GTMO were not in the practice of the using <redacted> and were of the opinion results obtained from these interrogations were suspect at best. BAU explained to DoD, FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." http://www.amnestyusa.org/Reports_S...Torture/page.do?id=1031036&n1=3&n2=38&n3=1052
Oh please, are you so naive as to think that Americans have not been tortured by our gov't to get information? By local police? Torture isn't putting someone on the rack. It can simply be beating someone, solitary confinement, or other means up to an including a bright light in someone's face for a long long period of time.
always insightful and interesting points you bring up. you really get people thinking outside of the box
so torture doesnt work right? It would seem that the experts of interrogations would know this, correct? or is this something that you know and no one else? Given that torture tactics (whichever they are) are not effective, it would seem that the true experts would know this and would thus not use the torture tactics most commonly thought of when torture is mentioned, e.g. beating up, etc. Unless you are assuming that they are purposely using ineffective means. .
the experts told us the iraq war would work. just because someone tells you they're an expert on something doesn't mean you have to believe it. the truth is none of us knows what is going on and how effective it is.
