Debate Torture as a means for extracting information

Just recently, U.S. president Bush said he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

If you don't know what waterboarding is, click here.

 

Torture could be used under certain circumstances. Like if there's a group of U.S. soldiers that were certain to die or be a POW. And there was a chance even a tiny chance that it could help or save them. You can't tell me you wouldn't use torture to help our soldiers. This really shouldn't be discussed by us, try telling a U.S. soldier that you wouldn't use torture to save them because you think it's immoral.

 

I feel torture is immoral. I am a solider but i would never ask anyone to torture another being to get me back. I know my job as a solider and I know I will be tortured but i signed up for this job and I know how to handle. If i was being tortured, I wouldn't want anyone else to go through that same pain. So asking someone to do it to find me would make me a hypocrite would it not?

 

No, I find you a damn good person.

 

Well right, wrong, or in different I would feel like a hypocrite if I came back from being tortured and found out that someone else was tortured to get me back. Granted I would be happy to be alive but I would still feel like a hypocrite.

 

In my opinion torture is immoral and wrong.

Torture also isn't totally reliable.What if you are torturing someone who doesn't have the information you want? Also people might lie just to end the torture and send you wrong information.

 

If the person is guilty of a VERY bad crime, (such as terrorism, serial killing, ect.) then yes.

 

if any military/police type orginisation want to touture people they will if those idiots at abu gharb{who were following orders watch ghosts of abu ghard}hadnt had a camera we wouldnt know about it not saying i agree with it but thats the way it is

if and this is a big if there was literlaly a ticking bomb and lives were at stake i would want them to do whatever they can but this scenario is rare

waterboarding is touture as well as sensory depravation despite what cheney makes bush say

 

Let's turn this scenario around, shall we? Say a group of US soldiers are captured and are being questioned about their commander's military tactics, strategies, and future attack plans. Of course the soldiers won't give up that information willingly, so the torture begins. Is this ok? No it isn't, and not simply for the "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys" bullshit argument. There is a very good reason that the Geneva Conventions were created. Just because we're the "good guys" (a concept that is laughable in today's world) doesn't make us immune from them or gives our government the right to pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to.

 

Thank you squid that basically sums up what I was trying to say. All thought we all know the Geneva Conventions is crap. I mean it was a great idea and I know for the most part the US follows them, but not everyone country does.

 

I think that's the best explanation yet. I don't see how anyone could think torture is a plausible way to extract information if they switch their prospective

 

Hey guys. I just wrote an entire debate essay on USA torture for school, and thought that it shouldn't go to waste. I have no clue if this is necro posting, sorry if it is. I'm pretty sure it's not spam.​

​

​

The debate on the topic of U.S. torture is one concerning the security not only of our nation, but the very lives of innocent women, children, and men encompassing the globe. It is unfair to say that the United States is torturing innocent people for absolutely no reason. Our nation is using torture as a reliable method of extracting crucial, life saving information from someone who is very likely not innocent at all. This is the case in Guantanamo bay. Some men being held may be innocent, but a large number of them are not. Torture has provided reliable, vital information time and time again. In fact, even a war hero as honorable as Senator John McCain give into the comparatively crude torture methods he was subjected to in Viet Cong. The effect torture has on the United States’ global image is superficial compared to the amount of lives it is saving. Lastly, torture is seen as a form of ugly, cruel and unusual punishment. This is untrue. Torture is used exclusively for informational purposes by the United States. Torture is, on the grand scale, a justifiable and righteous act, for torture is and can continue to be a way to save the lives of many, many innocent people.
To begin with, I would like to denounce the notion that the United States is torturing anyone at all for some sick joy in it, or as a punishment. The men that the United States may have tortured for information are terrorists or suspect terrorists. These men are usually involved in the extremist organization Al Qaeda, the same group responsible for terroristic attacks on our country on 9/11 and countless other attacks in the Middle East. Over four thousand U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since 9/11, over eighty percent in attacks organized Al Qaeda. Is it worth the torture of one Terrorist to save the very life of one American soldier? Another death toll that is quite important is the amount of civilians killed in Iraq during the Iraq war and its’ aftermath. That number is at least a horrific eighty nine thousand, two hundred seventy eight innocent lives. Is it worth the torture of a comparatively tiny amount of these men to save the innocent lives of so many civilians? Torture is the most efficient method of receiving such information.
Interrogating and torturing enemy combatants has provided reliable, live saving information in a number of scenarios. A very well known life involved in torture is the life of Senator John McCain. This war hero was tortured in Viet Cong after being shot down from his plane. The soldiers’ code of conduct forbade him from giving them any information other than his name, serial number, and rank. After mild torture, he revealed his ships’ name, squadron number, and confirmed that his target had been a power plant. This information was not especially important to the interrogators, but the point is that they tortured for information to protect them selves during their war effort, no matter how righteous it was in the eyes of others. In contrast to their war effort, the United States is torturing to protect itself, its’ allies, and countless civilians. Sadly, the number they were unable to protect was already counted. Retired CIA agents have openly admitted that water boarding has saved lives. Is that worth it to you?
The use of torture as a means to ensure our security can quite obviously seem to be a blemish on the United State’s image as a nation. The Geneva Convention can be interpreted to say that the United States has allegedly ‘broken the rules’ it set down. This is where a moral issue comes into play. Is it right to follow a set of outdated rules set by quite possibly out of touch representatives and abandon the possibility of saving innocent, real lives? Is it right to ‘look bad’ for the sake of the safety of you and your allies? Let’s consider the classic scenario for torture. There is an atomic bomb in New York, and it is rigged to go off in an hour. If you have the only person able to stop that from happening in custody, but he refuses to speak, is it wrong to torture him to save the thousands of lives lost upon detonation and the millions more from cancer later on in life? Allow me to put this into a more real life context for you. Is it right to be known as ‘that person that punched someone’, if by punching them you saved someone’s life? This may seem a bit extreme, but if you think about it, it’s not. Torture could be, lets say, three thousand times worse than punching someone. What if you saved three thousand lives with torture? What if you could have stopped 9/11 with it? That is no longer a grey area, but a very clear one. The idea of running a powerful nation involved in wars, with over three hundred million lives to protect, without the use of torture is a very respectable one. The sad truth is, you can protect it that much better with torture, save that many more lives than you could by being the ‘nice guy’. America has always been known for securing liberty for our people, and defending them, as well. Torture is being used to defend America.
The face of US torture is not as ugly as many might imagine. The United States does not use a rack, remove limbs, attack prisoners with weapons, or kill relatives of the detainee. The United States institutes methods that leave few or no physical scars, opting for more efficient mental methods. The United States does not torture for the purpose of being cruel, even though the detainees may seem to deserve it. The United States simply tortures for information that will protect the welfare of innocent lives.
The word torture conjures images of horrible, horrible things, but the subject of torture is very much different. Tortures’ results justify its’ somewhat cruel physical ‘appearance’. Its’ blemish on America’s national standing is worth the lives it is saving. Torture is being used by The United States as a reliable method to extract life saving information from suspected terrorists. The possible negative effect of America’s global image is dwarfed by the fact that it can save so many lives. Lives that anti-torture activists are willing to hide, to ignore, in favor of siding with those who wish to harm us. America does not wish to use torture as a weapon, but as a defense. Looking at some of the facts, at half of the story, one might be able to say that they feel torture is wrong, but with the whole picture, all the evidence, and all of the stories making up the big picture, it is clear that torture is a necessary measure to take to ensure the welfare of those in harm’s way.

 

i agree with humboys completely and i would like to add idea for people to think about. how do you get a terrorist who thinks that you are so evil that he is willing to blow himself up just to have a chance of killing you. also it is not as if we are cutting off their fingers or chopping off their heads like they do to our innocent civilians. also to squid hands argument that using the Geneva convention. that only apply's to groups of people who signed the Geneva accords since the Taliban and al'quida have not we don't have to by law adhere to any of the accords when dealing with them

 

Wow, what idiotic babble. I sincerely hope you got a failing grade on your school essay. Because if not, your teacher is not doing his job.

For one, where are the facts? All of this is idiotic, opinionated, rightwing bullshit. Torture is a "reliable method of extracting crucial information"? Torture is a "justifiable and righteous act"? That is freaking retarded, and I usually don't stoop to insults, but you are as well if you believe that.

One of the problems with America using torture, besides being HUGELY immoral, is that it puts our country in a position where we can't defend ourselves. From now on, if one of our soldiers gets captured and tortured, we don't have much room to argue. Like Squid said in a blog recently.. "America can't just say 'you can't torture our soldiers, because we don't use torture... anymore...'"

And saying that the torture 'isn't that bad', or that it's not done with a sick sense of satisfaction from the torturers.... ugh, seriously? Have you seen any of the evidence or facts out there about what has been done? Do you know any of the stories? Where did you come up with this **** for your essay? Lol, reading it made me throw up in my mouth a little.

 

I see so many responses saying torture is immoral. Morality or morals differ depending on were people were raised, how they were brought up, and what they believe in. This is why people can blow themselves up to kill other people. People can deem causing someone suffering immoral. Which is why people deem torture immoral.

Other than the morality issue what is wrong with torture?

 

I'm just going to let these articles speak for me, they do it better.

Retired generals meet with Barack Obama aides -- chicagotribune.com

Press TV - UK: US torture claims unreliable

US Experts Say Torture Is Outmoded and Unreliable

ABC News: CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

The US ratified the Geneva Convention, the US is required to comply with it.

Here's the introduction to a paper about this. Read the 3rd paragraph... that's how I feel.

Do you not deem the causing of suffering to be immoral? I'm gathering that you are trying to look past the morality issue to see the real, concrete effects our actions are having (see my response above for that). While I understand that, I don't agree with it, especially in the case of torture. For me personally, torture is about as horrible thing as you can do to another person. That wouldn't really matter, except the rest of the world seems to agree with me.

When you do something that is seen as immoral in the eyes of (for all practical purposes) the entire world, there are real, concrete repercussions. I could go into blowback, but that's such a touchy subject. I will if you want.

 

There are two things, maybe three, that will without question happen when you torture another human to get information:

1. You will inflict massive amounts of pain. It staggers the imagination how many ways we humans have concocted with which to torture each other (the Romans used to put offenders in a burlap sack with a dog, a monkey, and a snake and throw them all in a river). It seems that when it comes to destruction, we rule.
2. Gain a twisted form of psychological gratification in that you're doing something to help your cause. Helplessness and frustration is understandably common when confronting an enemy that information that you can't get just by asking.
3. (This one is the "maybe" part, dependent on the questioner) Another large chunk of your soul will whither and die as you knowingly and willingly torture a hogtied person. I defy any one of you to commit an act of violence on another human being and not have it change you in any way. The more you engage in it, the further you get from being able to interact with other 'normal' people. Don't believe me? Just ask any veteran who has seen what a simple bullet does to another man. Torture is far more up close and personal, so you get to compound that by a large sum.

What you will not get, and this is a biggie, is any form of reliable information. The majority of people who end up getting tortured for information are those that have been classically trained, either militarily or religiously, to resist interrogation. If you can't tell what information is reliable, why continue to use it? The only reason I can think of that could hold any real truth is no. 2.

 

Yeah, in fact, look at this chart I got here.



Look at America though, look at how much less progressive we are than countries like Palestine or China.

 

Too much misinformation to sacrifice the dignity of America.