|
I think it depends what side you are on. If you were a prisoner in the hands of the Japanese in WW2
then you would have thought their methods barbaric.
On the other hand if you are administering methods used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba by the Americans
it probably isn't so unacceptable or Barbaric. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If your in that line of work you should always have a suicide capsule. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In some crimes torture should be acceptable |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
People murder someone and end up locked in a cell for the rest of their life, with TV, free food,
free accommodation and we have to pay for them. After a few years they're back out again because
they claim to have changed and they get to avoid a life sentence. People who end the life of another
person should be tortured, as this would be worse than the death penalty which is the easy way out.
They should be put through the same pain that they made the other human being and their family
endure. Then they wouldn't be tempted to do it again would they? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are some valid reasons and places where torture has been required. I am not supporting the
world wide usage of torturing people, but I must admit there are some cases when torture is needed.
This is not at all acceptable to torture an innocent person or an elderly citizen, but what should
be done in the cases of terrorists who always want to destroy people? To save the lives of million
people, these terrorists should be tortured (not killed). Usually torture is made to terrorists to
get the details of their works. These terrorists are the most dangerous things in this world in
order to take the millions of innocent lives. Thus if they are being tortured just to protect those
innocent lives, I think no one in this world would object. This would be a very much welcome thing
if these heartless terrorists get tortured. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In some cases, yes. I was against this strongly too until I was persuaded by this argument. However,
even after hearing it successfully argued--I do believe it is no more easy to accept or agree with
than it was before.
If we are unwilling to torture, then we should be unwilling to go to war.
What is truly the difference between collateral damage and torture? Is it the fact that we don't
personally see the damage as we do it? That dropping bombs is not as bad as stabbing someone with a
knife or dumping ice water down their throats? Not seeing them might make it easier..but it
shouldn't be that easier.
Sam Harris points out, "To learn that one's grandfather flew a bombing mission over Dresden in World
War 2 is one thing, to hear that he killed five little girls and their mother with a shovel is
another. We can be sure that he would have killed more women and girls by dropping bombs from
pristine heights, and they are likely to have died equally horrible deaths, but his culpability
would not appear the same"
The difference between killing one person and killing 3 thousand just doesn't seem as arresting to
us as it should. When most of us watched the 9/11 attacks with thousands of people dying...one of
the most universal and common feelings we felt wasn't overwhelming grief. It was disbelief. Harris
argues that there are limits to which the mind can make of the deliverances of its senses.
Isn't it perverse that the idea of torturing Osama bin Laden made our most prominent government
leaders go crazy with conscious and moral issues--yet the slaughter of thousands of children with
collateral damage holds not nearly the same attention in their moral agendas?
Or that the idea of torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the Al Qaeda member who was believed to be the
man who killed the Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, was a tough decision to make? While
our leaders were debating whether to inflict pain onto this man-- plenty of innocent Afghanis and
Iraqis were painfully dying as we wrestled with these moral issues?
If there is a 1 in a million chance to gain information from a terrorist, then I think we should
most certainly use what means we can.
People against torture will argue that the testimonies given by torture prisoners may not be very
unreliable. However in rebuttal to this you must consider the "ticking bomb" argument. This was made
by Alan Dershowitz from 60 Minutes.
A known terrorist has planted a bomb in the center of a neighboring city and this man is now in your
custody. He will say nothing of where the bomb is located except that it is in a location that will
kill the maximum amount of people possible. Considering this, and knowing you have the chance to
save possible thousands--isn't exposing this terrorist to some pain a moral leap we just have to
force or minds to accept is the option we need to choose?
It's hard to grasp. It's hard for me also. But I believe if we are willing to sacrifice for
collateral damage in war--then if there ever is a situation in which we could potentially gain
information from a dangerous terrorist that would help potentially save lives or give us information
that would help protect our country we should. Obviously the key word here is in SOME cases. Most
cases are obsolete and would not help to use torture techniques. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think this depends on who you are torturing. An innocent man, a citizen, or a solider, never. But
if you need to torture (not kill, just scare) a terrorist, for example, to save the lives of
thousands of people, then I say yes, protect innocent lives by torturing the one who seeks to
destroy them. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Yep it's okay if i rape some girl that's alright |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No.
You torture someone, you forfeit your right to be called a human being.
Human is Humane.
Period. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The only time torture is OK is if the guy asks for it and the woman agrees. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm against physical torture. If you want to know something, ask. If the person does not want to
reveal his/her secrets, you can use chemicals, hypnosis or any other non-hurtful means. It will be
more efficient. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is not good and they can hurt people lots. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Torture should not be allowed in no way shape or form. People do not understand that whether or not
it is physical or mental torture always leaves a scar. You wouldn't like it if you were that person
that they wanted to get info from and they tortured you because you felt obligated to be loyal. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Torture is not acceptable in any circumstances. If we torture, our enemies will torture, it is
always better to take the high ground than to lower yourself to the level of your enemy. The real
issue is, what is torture? Is using drugs to extract information torture? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No form of torture should be allowed. That's sick. And wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In my opinion, actions such as that would send us back to the Medieval age. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The ban on torture should be absolute. Torture fans always offer up the fantasy scenario of a
ticking time bomb about to go off and only the torture victim knows where it is. Please. This is
utter nonsense. That scenario has never occurred anywhere ever and never will outside of a film
studio. Even if it did, the torture victim could just as well supply his torturers with false
information. By the time they checked it out, the bomb would have gone off.
Apart from the moral considerations, torture is simply not reliable as a method of extracting
information. If you go back to World War 2, interrogators were people who built up relationships
with prisoners, established a rapport with them and eventually got information out of it. That is
the only reliable way of getting information from captives.
Much of the catastrophe of the last few years has come as the result of torture. The stories about
Iraqi WMDs and terrorist training camps came partly from people who were tortured after being
captured in Afghanistan. They just told their torturers what they thought they wanted to hear.
To condone torture is to step into a moral abyss. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We outlawed torture and there was a reason that we outlawed it! We should never use torture to
obtain information. There is no moral dilemma when it comes to torturing. You can't use the
argument that it will save lives. If we knew that it would save lives, we wouldn't need to torture.
If someone was tortured, and it didn't save lives, the debt of the apology we would owe to that
person would be limitless. There is not justification in torture at any stages. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Torture is never the correct the action. Naomi Wolf (author of "The End of America") reports that
the leading authorities of this topic say that prisoners being tortured will do whatever they have
to do to get out of being tortured; they will even admit to something they haven't done, thereby
providing false information. Torture is obsolete. All this beside the fact that torture is
completely inhumane and a huge ethical no-no. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why do you think that torture is acceptable in some cases? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How can the purposeful intention to cause another human being suffering and pain be an acceptable
thing to do? It suggests that under certain conditions, you will physically and psychologically harm
someone because you believe that they will reveal something that is useful to you. The American
public has been sold this idea through television shows such as 24, where torture has been used to
extract vital information. Those questioning it have been made to look weak and silly. They are
not patriots.
Right back in 1969, the Field Manual for CIA operatives stated that information that was extracted
under duress or torture was not reliable. Let's face it, if you are being tortured, you'd probably
say absolutely anything to make them stop, you could end up telling them the biggest load of
rubbish, just to stop the pain.
Recently, the House of Representatives in the USA has voted to refuse to allow the CIA to use
torture techniques such as simulated drowning, where they pour water directly into the victim's
mouth and therefore into the lungs. Other torture techniques have been banned also, but the idea
that they have been using these techniques against their prisoners means that they have been
flaunting the Geneva Convention on the protection of Prisoners of War.
Those who consider it a dirty business but necessary , consider the House of Representatives weak
for this move, as if the politicians don't understand. But this is a simple issue of right and
wrong, it is not a matter of considering each case on its merit and wondering about whether torture
could save lives.
I think it's just a little ironic, that the land of the free and the home of the brave has been
torturing its prisoners since 9/11 without flinching. What price is your freedom? Mine? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
13 Dec 2007 19:31
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity