Is Torture ok?

No.

(Please note that the answer to the question should require no more commentary. To make sure this is not a one liner, the answer to the question "is torture ok," is resoundingly NO. Such a thing is an enemy to everything the United States of America has fought for during all the years it has existed. Just because this cult of torture has hijacked the government, does make it "okay." It is not okay at all period. People who are going along with it, simply show their brain dead agreement with subliminal television, and twisted media persuasion. You know this evaluation is right in your conscience. )

What are we saying torture is again ? Physical abuse, mind screwing ?

I am absolubteley disgusted with the US attitude on torture. Anybody who has not seen the docudrama "The Road to Guantanamo" must see it (IMO), as it is a brilliant film which brings forward proof of Americas incompetance when it comes to holding and putting supposed "enemy" prisoners on trial, aswell as highlighting some of the inhumane and disgraceful treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Please at least take the time to read about it here - The Road to Guantanamo

Here's what Eric Haney, one of the founding members of the U.S. military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit Delta Force, has to say about torture:

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

LA Daily News

Oh yeah, I bet he's a total nitwit and doesn't know what he's talking about

Is torture OK? Is this a moral and ethical dilemma?

Yes, It's a moral dilema. But what is morality?

Morals are blanket solutions to spontaneous situations.

So is It moral to torture "terrorists"?
Yes, because they are "godless" and they are killing innocent people.
Is It moral to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis?
Yes, because they are "godless".
And they are standing on our Oil.

Is this acceptable to most Americans?

Of course, because most of them are "moral" people or so they think.

But is It Ethical?

Not in a million years!

Ethics is a spontaneous solutions to spontaneous situations. It is what shine from within yourself out in the world.

Morals - Mind (social, religious, "rational" rules and norms)
Ethics - Consciousness

Mind - You think.
Consciousness - You KNOW.

I also have an interesting link to documentary on google for all Torture cheerleaders.

(Warning: Contains mild nudity and alot of foul language. Parental Descretion Advised!)

The Guantanamo Bay Guidebook

Spread them boy, like you do It for your boyfriend!

I think if they know lots of info about an important thing ... like where a terrorisom attack it planed they should be tortured harshly but if it's something smaller then just slight tortured should be used.

Originally posted by miss_gymnast004
I think if they know lots of info about an important thing ... like where a terrorisom attack it planed they should be tortured harshly but if it's something smaller then just slight tortured should be used.

A question for you miss_gymnast004 and other members.

Would you volunteer for a torture experiment presented in my link above?

Hmmm...

Interesting.

No questions, no comments.

I guess the documentary was to much fo someones fragile sensitivities.

Here's a question (and to give credit it's more or less taken, or at least inspired, from the article Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Time Bomb adapted from a Law Review article by David Luban in the March 2006 issue of Harper's):

Many people who support torture, even in limited form (almost always in limited form, as no one really supports a blanket policy of mass torture), refer to the ticking time bomb argument- that is, more or less, torture might be justified in instances where the information possibly extracted could save lives- possibly a great number of lives. The harm done to the tortured individual is considered justified in light of the lives potentially saved as a result.

Now, torturing suspected terrorists or criminals or whoever, who may hold such information, might not always be effective, because the person who has the crucial information might either die or be rendered unconscious in the course of torturing, or they might simply have a very high tolerance to pain or stress.

So... the question is... why not torture their loved ones instead?

After all, if 1,000 lives or more could be saved, if the WTC tower attacks could have been prevented, say, by torturing one individual, why not increase the effectiveness and chances of saving those lives by, say, torturing that individuals wife in front of him? Or child? Either way, the bomb is still ticking, right?

Historically, this has been done, it probably still is being done, but just speaking theoretically, how would say, Alberto Gonzalez have answered these questions if he was redrafting the torture memos, as a purely theoretical policy matter? How would you?

[edit on 6-4-2006 by koji_K]

Good question.

I believe messing with a persons mind is much more effective. I feel physical torture is more vengefull and evil than anything else. I think that one who resorts to physical torture is weak. There is no reason for it. You can make a person break and beg to tell you the truth with out ever touching them. IMHO, a person who resorts to physically torturing someone is like a wolf who has tasted blood. When a person is being physically tortured, the only one who has been broken is the person doing the torturing. I know as a fact that it is quicker and more effective to mess with a persons mind - with or with out drugs - than it is to physically torture them.

Originally posted by koji_K

So... the question is... why not torture their loved ones instead?

[edit on 6-4-2006 by koji_K]

Which then begs the question - what if it was YOUR mother, YOUR wife or even YOU who was the suspects loved one? Would you then advocate YOUR OWN torture in order to extract information from a suspect?

This is a dangerous road to travel. What gives anyone the right to torture someone because of another persons action?

When you start down this path, you have removed the liberties that we aim to protect.