Torture

[_Sethbag]

First off, let me say that I'd definitely torture someone if I thought they knew where my kidnapped child was.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable with us using torture during this "war on terror". It's a huge cliché, but in this sort of thing there really is a slippery slope, and all too many nations in the past have gone down that route and made their countries into places I wouldn't want to live in. I just don't know what to think about it, in the case of, say, al Qaeda, but on the other hand, it's a serious topic, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

Sure, you torture one Afghan or Saudi Arabian, and you might get some useful information that helps prevent attacks on Americans. Sounds good. But what is the cost? Is there really no cost, and no future threat to even more people, if we do engage in torture in these situations?

I cannot believe these actions happen in a vacuum. There's a cost to be paid, and I worry that it might be higher than we imagine.

[_ozemc]

I want to know what each and every one of you would do if it were your child's life at stake.

I think that is a fair question.

I support doing whatever is necessary to save lives.

If that includes waterboarding, so be it.

[_ozemc]

Kevin,

The image of CIA agents running around torturing people is a silly caricature of what I said, and you know it. Redemptive violence has become part of the American ethos, whether it be the American Revelation, the Civil War, the Iraq war, or torture. And unfortunately (to put something of a utilitarian spin on my idealistic ethic) we are finding that violence begets violence. If we really want a world where there's no violence, the first step is to avoid giving people excuses for it. When the use of violence is precluded, one frequently surprises oneself by finding redemptive solutions one might not otherwise have considered.

I admit that there are limits even to my idealism. In the Jack Bauer scenario where there's a nuke going off in LA in 24 hours and we're trying to find out where it is, I'd dunk the bastard. And in World War II, where there were millions being slaughtered in death camps, I believe joining the war was the right thing to do. But in cases where there is no such clear goal, I simply can't condone the use of violence. And I can't vote for anyone who does. I'm sorry you disagree, but here I stand.

-Chris

Unfortunately, ours is a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force.

That's just the way it is.

[_krose]

This "ticking time bomb" scenario is so completely bogus. Such a hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely to ever happen except in a Hollywood drama. How in the world would you 'know' for sure they had the information you need so you could beat it out of them?

The reality is that you have someone you suspect may be involved in planning some nefarious activity and you want to get more information. They might know something, or they might not. To set interrogation policy based on the most extreme hypothetical is wrong.

[_dartagnan]

First off, let me say that I'd definitely torture someone if I thought they knew where my kidnapped child was.

Yes I think everyone would agree.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable with us using torture during this "war on terror". It's a huge cliché, but in this sort of thing there really is a slippery slope, and all too many nations in the past have gone down that route and made their countries into places I wouldn't want to live in.

This is what I don't understand. Does everyone really think that this kind of "torture" is new? It has been used throughout the history of the United States. The only difference is that today the media is managing to get its nose into the private doings of the military. This is more of a problem than anything, I believe. During WWIII you didn't have FOX journalists on the scene in Normandy broadcasting live footage of German positions and drawing in the sand, how things are being played out. I remember Geraldo Rivera did this in the early stages of the Iraq war and it was a day or so before anyone realized just how stupid this was. He was immediately reprimanded when a military General saw what he was doing on the news. Likewise, we tortured Germans and Japanese in ordewr to get information, the same as they tortured our POWs. But we just didn't hear about it like we do today.

Do we really need to know these intimate details of the war? All this does is make the military's job much more difficult.
Another example is the protection of mosques. Terrorists hide out in the mosques and we're are told we're supposed to respect the religious places of worship. So they have sancturary while shooting at our troops, plucking them off one by one. During WWII one of the oldest Catholic Cathedrals was blown to bits when the allied forces found out that some German troops had taken refuge therein. There was no global uproar about it.

Sure, you torture one Afghan or Saudi Arabian, and you might get some useful information that helps prevent attacks on Americans. Sounds good. But what is the cost? Is there really no cost

Not much of a cost at all, in my view. This is why I am surprised to see so many peope protest it. Naturally, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis.

no future threat to even more people, if we do engage in torture in these situations?

The purpose of torture is not to end future threats. It is to remove an immediate threat.

There's a cost to be paid

Only in theory; a theory that hasn't been proved or even argued well. I think this is what Chris was getting at too. So what's this terrible price?

[Guest]

This "ticking time bomb" scenario is so completely bogus. Such a hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely to ever happen except in a Hollywood drama. How in the world would you 'know' for sure they had the information you need so you could beat it out of them?

The reality is that you have someone you suspect may be involved in planning some nefarious activity and you want to get more information. They might know something, or they might not. To set interrogation policy based on the most extreme hypothetical is wrong.

What I find bogus is this constant attempt to recreate the situation.

Again I say, the presumption is that someone with life-saving information is in custody of intelligence officials. What should they be allowed to do in order to save lives?

You're not going to get around this by saying this situation never really exists. We know it exists. We know that torture has resulted in the salvation of lives. We know it works. The extreme nuclear attack scenario was raised by Chris, but this isn't the only scenario whereby lives are at stake.

If a man who kidnapped your child was captured, and didn't want to tell us where your child was, would you agree to torture methods? It is a simple question.

Such a hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely to ever happen except in a Hollywood drama.

Edward Said is one of the most respected scholars on Islam. In the early 90's he heard of chatter among intelligence officials about future attacks. He wrote that the idea of jumbo jets flying into buildings was also bogus. He went on to say it was just America's attempt to create a new enemy to replace the USSR. A few years later that "bogus" scenario was realized. Teh question is, what shoudl teh law be in making sure these things do not happen? If democrats had their way, terrorists could afford to be careless and allow themselves to be captured. At least they could expect three square meals and cable TV where CNN would be painiting the picture as if America was losing every battle.

[_karl61]

WWJBD, what would Jack Bauer do?

he's in jail serving a month or so for driving under the influence of alchohol.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

If a man who kidnapped your child was captured, and didn't want to tell us where your child was, would you agree to torture methods? It is a simple question.

In a proverbial New York second.

[_silentkid]

Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, makes an interesting case for torture as "an ethical necessity in our war on terror". In his book, he argues that misinformation or lack of information garnered from torture (or the torture of an innocent) is no worse than the collateral damage caused by dropping bombs. I don't have my copy of the book with me at the moment, but I googled this article in which he explains his reasoning. I think he makes some valid points.

[_Black Moclips]

On my mission, I toured a castle in Spain where they had on display the instruments of torture from the Spanish Inquisition. Pretty gruesome stuff. I think torture has improved a lot since then if all we are talking about is a little head dunking.

I honestly think that anything we do to captured, known terrorists is nothing in comparison to what other countries do and have done to our guys. So I think we are already on the higher road. I have no problem with the torture of known terrorists. None whatsoever.

And if my children were at stake, I wouldn't hesitate to go mideval and use the Iron Maiden, the Anal Pear, or the Rack.