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 problems with this.
1. A suspect is someone accused of a crime and has not been found guilty of it. So that person you think is ok to be tortured could be innocent and this has happened at least a few times. That is NOT acceptable.
2. Torture has NEVER been shown to be a reliable means of extracting information.
