mawibse Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 In extreme cases, say if a terrorist is arrested and is suspected that have hidden a nuclearbomb that is about to go off? The one major complaint about torture is that if you’re tortured you’d say what you think the torturers want to hear to make it stop, so its not reliable information. But in the case above its easily verifiable and for an important cause.
Kosmo Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 Like you said it's an double edged sword. You might save lifes by torturing a terrorist or evildoer of some sorts, but you also might be torturing an innocent person or get false information. It's hard to say right and wrong in a situation like this, comparable to the pcifism ideology, I myself don't believe in violence, but I'm not an absolute pacifist, in a situation where I can save someone dear to me (like a wife or kid) I will use violence.
⌐■_■ Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that. I'd even enjoy it.
GrayFox Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that. What if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok?
⌐■_■ Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that. What if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok? In extreme cases, say if a terrorist is arrested and is suspected that have hidden a nuclearbomb that is about to go off?
The Postman Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 Is this even a question? No, torture is never okay.
GrayFox Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that. What if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok? In extreme cases, say if a terrorist is arrested and is suspected that have hidden a nuclearbomb that is about to go off? I don't believe you. Or perhaps you can't imagine well enough what it would be like...
⌐■_■ Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 I hate pacifists... Oh, and GreyFox, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to do it. I also think it would be my responsabillity to do so. To say I'd enjoy it was a joke. Maybe not the most suited one. Sorry for that. Yes I would feel sick after torturing a guy but if I would be 100% sure about the fact that I could save innoncent lives with it, I do it. That's just my view on this case.
⌐■_■ Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 Then the blood of the innocent victims would be on your hands... Of course this situation is totally hypothetic.
GrayFox Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 I hate pacifists... Oh, and GreyFox, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to do it. I also think it would be my responsabillity to do so. To say I'd enjoy it was a joke. Maybe not the most suited one. Sorry for that. Yes I would feel sick after torturing a guy but if I would be 100% sure about the fact that I could save innoncent lives with it, I do it. That's just my view on this case. Note, that I specifically meant that YOU are the subject to torture. You changing your mind now? Still think it would be ok?
Lurker Posted November 1, 2005 Report Posted November 1, 2005 Torture is an extremely shortsighted solution, and in this case, to an extremely shortsighted war. If you think the you can chase terrorism as a mentality off the planet using guns and bombs, you are so horribly mistaken. Take away their capability to strike? Possibly, there is absolutely no guarantee you will take out the whole network and even if you do it would take years upon years and spill way too much of your own (and innocent) blood. If you want to get rid of an issue, you attack it at its root, not the resultant problem. That being said, go ahead and torture him. Just don't think that when and if he gets released, it won't radicalize those around him. These people don't go home and shut up and don't tell anyone what happened to them. They go home, tell the people they meet what the country that is supposedly liberating their region and spreading peace did to them, and they too will pick up arms and fight. It's got nothing to do with pacifism, and everything to do with common sense. 50 years on, we'll still be fighting this war if we don't adopt a different style of fighting. And there will still be politicians milking it for support, and there will still be Volvo-driving soccer moms who fear going shopping at their local Walmart in Nowheresville, USA because they think a Middle-Eastern from Egypt who is completely radicalized by Islam and wants to kill all Americans is going to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. And it won't happen, but it could, and that's all that matters.
ginsengavenger Posted November 2, 2005 Report Posted November 2, 2005 thing is, the people in gitmo aren't going home. that's another problem. torture is wrong.
Kosmo Posted November 2, 2005 Report Posted November 2, 2005 It's not a question of what happens after person is tortured, and how will it effect those around him. Terrorists in most cases.. oh who am I kidding, in EVERY case are not wrap so tight, so do you really think that the fact that someone was tortured has any effect at all? It is a moral issue, if we see necessary to torture someone, how we are any better than the person who makes sneak attacks at our country? I don't think that torture is right in any case, not even the most extreme case.
Recommended Posts