Is Torture ok?

I want to get everyone's opinion on the use of torturing prisoners of war and suspects in terrorism investigations. There are many ways to torture someone without it being lethal. Every attempt should be made to use non-lethal, but I do think there are times when one has to do whatever it takes to make 'em sing - like ascertaining the whereabouts of a dirty bomb or terrorists planting viruses to be released. So what do you all think?

hmmmm...touch opinion to state one obvious side i am on, however i think if it was someone who shows no remorse for other human beings and has commited serious offfences in the past i would count it as alright as long it was moderate. On the other hand if he was just a soldier on the opposite side i think it is totally inapropiate to do that to someone for information. But like i just said if it was a leader of a malicious nature i count is as ok sort of.

Just do what US does. If they have somebody who they think has loads of information but won't talk, simply send them to Egypt. When they come back (they normally don't kill them) it is much easier to get information.

As one of my favorite characters would say, Spock:
"....logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
And Captain Kirks response: "Or the one."

Many may find this article interesting:
"Dershowitz: Torture could be justified"
Link:
www.cnn.com...


Though I do not agree with the use of "torture", I find that from a historical perspective and context, "torture" has been used since before recorded written history. "Torture" will remain an ethical and moral dilemma and will remain a very controversial subject. It will amount to one trying to climb a slippery uphill slope.
In inevitable fact of "torture" is that it has and will always be used, no matter the ethical and moral ramifications and arguments to the contrary nature of its use.
One cannot point out one 'incident' of this without bringing forth ALL the other incidents that have occurred and continue to occur throughout the world. "Torture" encompasses the past, the present, and undoubtedly, the future of man and mankind.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by FreedomOfSpeech
hmmmm...touch opinion to state one obvious side i am on, however i think if it was someone who shows no remorse for other human beings and has commited serious offfences in the past i would count it as alright as long it was moderate. On the other hand if he was just a soldier on the opposite side i think it is totally inapropiate to do that to someone for information. But like i just said if it was a leader of a malicious nature i count is as ok sort of.

i kinda agree, like if they get saddam, do whatever it takes,

but a soldier fighting for them in the rules of war, should be treated as we would like our soldiers treated

Torture - yes a major ethical dilema. In the case of identified combtants - ie soldiers of the other side identified by uniform, tags etc this is outlawed by the geneva convention. However when faced with "fith columists" insurgents or terrorists i think the lines grey somewhat.

Its interesting to note that the use of Torture was actually popularised in Medival Europe - mostly under the banner of creating religious purity - an odd stance for an organisation promoting ethics and preaching morality.

In WW2 the torture of prisoners in South East Asia is well documented - and ignored the lines between uniformed service personnel and "spys". It was also common in the Nazi regime to use rape as a torture device against female operatives - whether they be Foreign or Nationals.

I guess you have the dilema does the end justofy the means ? - and I for one cant even come close to answering that. Is it right to put one individual through hell to save 5 or 500 or 5 Million. FOr that I dont have an answer - the choice i guess is up to the collective conscience.

On a personal note - I am actually sure torture exists - outside of the countries we vilify for its use - but probably on a more sophisticated level - and we as the general public - given the lives it may save probably just close our eyes and ears to its use.

Like I said I have no answers - but i think "the needs of the many" may well be the telling arguement in this.

I always knew forms of torture have been used by agents of the U.S. government for various reasons. I cringed - even though I understand that sometimes it is a necessary evil. We live in a vicious world full of vicious criminals and psychopaths. Apart from it being inhuman, the main problem I have is that the Bush administration has no problem with trumpeting to the world our right to do it. I think it is something that should be handled very quietly. Discretion is the key. I think this arrogance places our soldiers and citizens overseas at much greater risk for retribution.

Is this not a day and age where we all suffer enough by the acts that only one brings to another as selves unto selves. I see everyone I meet as equal and perfect as God created before we knew breath. All acts of violence carried out by anyone is not by any means a step in the right diection. Who or what person may judge any other. I have developed a concept of assessment by which one must at any moment on any thought as to applied or intended by perception is merely the mind's psychological necessity for 'closure' on an idea or concept. Judgement is finality, as assessment as ascribed while also providing open-ended objectivity on the sub-concious level, so that partial closure affords the mind a margin for improvement upon the implementation of higher or more sophisticated logic strings in an increased level of viability.

o-jesus rotfl

Originally posted by Lucifer
Is this not a day and age where we all suffer enough by the acts that only one brings to another as selves unto selves. I see everyone I meet as equal and perfect as God created before we knew breath. All acts of violence carried out by anyone is not by any means a step in the right diection. Who or what person may judge any other. I have developed a concept of assessment by which one must at any moment on any thought as to applied or intended by perception is merely the mind's psychological necessity for 'closure' on an idea or concept. Judgement is finality, as assessment as ascribed while also providing open-ended objectivity on the sub-concious level, so that partial closure affords the mind a margin for improvement upon the implementation of higher or more sophisticated logic strings in an increased level of viability.

That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that there are evil bastards out there who would kill you rather than look at you. They do not speak the language of enlightenment. Unfortunately you have to deal with them in the way they understand. Otherwise you, your loved ones, cities and nation might be incinerated in the blink of an eye.

I think anyone who is sick enough to painfully torture anyone, you should watch out for. They're twisted individuals who have no guilt associated with torture and murder. In fact, I don't want these kinds of people in the gov't, period. Not in the military, and surely not in White House or Pentagon. You know what I'm saying? There's a point where certain soldiers can become killing machines...ones who enjoy causing death and suffering. These are the types of people I wish would just evaporate off the face of the earth.

[Edited on 11-26-2003 by Satyr]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
There are many ways to torture someone without it being lethal.

Isn't the point of torturing someone to make them think you will kill them if they don't talk. Sure, you can cut off a finger, but that would make them think you would eventually kill them. Seems like you wouldn't want everyone to know you aren't allowed to kill them, or nobody would talk.

mental torture makes your crack under stress, but i don't think pyshical tortue is ok.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I always knew forms of torture have been used by agents of the U.S. government for various reasons. I cringed - even though I understand that sometimes it is a necessary evil. We live in a vicious world full of vicious criminals and psychopaths. Apart from it being inhuman, the main problem I have is that the Bush administration has no problem with trumpeting to the world our right to do it. I think it is something that should be handled very quietly. Discretion is the key. I think this arrogance places our soldiers and citizens overseas at much greater risk for retribution.

I agree with this statement.

I think torture is o.k. just don't use it to gain information, because I have a suspicion that they would admit anything just to stop.

torture is good if you want it like me

gooking are you saying torturing people for no reason is ok?

torturing prisoners is no good

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Is Torture ok?

Ask to the US soldiers who were POW in North-Korea and North-Vietnam. They will enlight you on torture.

Or may be you mean that torture is sometimes ok and sometimes not ok ? Anyway, in my opinion, it's not depending on who's the torturer and who's the tortured. Torture is a disgusting abomination.

I don't think Torture should be legal at any time or place.

The covenant permits governments to temporarily suspend some of these rights in cases of civil emergency only, and lists those rights which cannot be suspended for any reason.

A Summary of
United Nations Agreements
on Human Rights



HUMAN RIGHTS

Heres the facts, you decide.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
The covenant permits governments to temporarily suspend some of these rights in cases of civil emergency only, and lists those rights which cannot be suspended for any reason.

Article 4, alineas 1. Damn UN !!! They allways give us something with their right hand, but in the same time, the left hand take it back.