Originally posted by Res_ipsa_loquitur
Numerous message boards here on ATS talk of how torturing terror suspects is so 'evil'; however, I would argue that now, more than any other period
in history, its use is entirely justified.
Human rights/civil liberty promoters endlessly rant about how inhuman, unconstitutional, illegal, etc the practice is. I think the key flaw in their
whole argument is that torturing suspects who wish to threaten our freedom and liberty is indirectly preserving our rights granted by law by removing
the threat which they desperately advocate.
Another way of looking at the whole situation is to look at it subjectively, as opposed to objectively. Imagine, the situation: your loved one goes to
work in a nearby city by means of a train commute. That train/subway is then attacked, as in London back in 2005, and your loved one dies as a result.
However, the whole heartache and loss could have been prevented if the authorities were legally allowed to extract crucial information prior to the
attack by means of torturing an associate of the terrorists. Would you still abhor the use of it as so many of you do?
Of course there will be innocent people who are wrongly suspected of involvement in any attacks/plots and subsequently tortured but is the torture of
one innocent that wrong in order to be able to torture ten guilty persons?
People in the U.S. should be more proud of their government organisations, in particular the CIA, who allegedly participate in these practices.
There are several flaws in your argument. First, you said that "the key flaw in their whole argument is that torturing suspects who wish to threaten
our freedom and liberty is indirectly preserving our rights granted by law by removing the threat which they desperately advocate"; however, how
would you argue that torture is being used to these ends? How would you prove that torture is actually protecting us when there is no evidence of
that, and all evidence that has been offered has been debunked? In addition, I have never seen any research on the use of torture that showed that
torture leads to viable information. What actually happens is that the person being tortured says anything just to make the torture stop. The truth of
that information does not actually mean anything.
Second, you gave the example of my loved one dying. First, you would have to have proof that the person you tortured actually had information. Since
that cannot be guaranteed, the likelihood of such measures leading to something like the camps instituted in WWII is too real. You imply that only one
person would be tortured unjustifiably, but I would argue that the ratio would probably go the other direction with many, many people being tortured
unjustifiably for a possible crumb of information that wouldn't be that reliable to begin with. Would I be upset over my loved one dying? Of course!
Would I want the people who caused it brought to justice? Absolutely! But would I want other innocent people to suffer because of it? Definitely not.
The fact is that we have been torturing people for years now, and we have nothing to show for it. The head of the DOJ has implied that we had
information that could have prevented 9-11 (obtained without torture, I might add). Our government chose not to act on that intelligence and instead,
fabricated intelligence to launch us into a war that now makes these arguments necessary.
If we are a nation of laws and not of men, then we must follow those laws as they have been set out, which includes adhering to the treaties that we
have signed, such as the Geneva Convention. Otherwise, we cannot be any sort of light to the world in the press for democracy.
