Generally, I am against torture to gain information. Many experts have stated that the information gained from torture is not always accurate because people will say anything to stop the torture.

Here is a case I would like people's opinion on.

U.S. federal agents catch a known terrorists on U.S. soil. This terrorists has addmitted to killing U.S. citizens in the past and we have solid intelligence that a major terror attack will occurr in 12 hours were 10,000+ U.S. citizens is estimated to be killed if pulled off successfully.

You have intelligence like phone recordings, papers, and other captured terrorists that colaberate the story. U.S. officials interrorgate the terrorist and resort to torture. They resort to known techniques that work. The terrorist breaks and provides information on the who, what, where and why. An anti-terror squad rushes an apartment building in New York city and round up a 5-man terrorist cell that had the equipment and plans to pour bio/chemical agents into the New York water supply.

What is your opinion?

I hope U.S. agents do stuff like this to prevent attacks. This is probably why we have not had another 9-11 style attack. Torture should only be used in extreme cases like this. The enemy will not start to torture more because we resoirt to torturing known terrorists. They are already executing downed pilots, beheading civillians, and targeting civilians with bombs.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Torturing someone is terrible and inhumane; stated like that it all sounds wrong. Sacrificing the life of one to save many sounds heroic. I'd say torturing someone to save the lives of many fits somewhere in between there. I say it is necessary. Sure, it isn't pretty, but it's still necessary, IMO.

It's not necessary and information garnered from coersion and physical torture is neither viable nor reliable. Aside from watching too many seasons of 24, let's not forget the principles for which we stand for. Making exceptions to the rule and violating human liberties makes us guilty as the parties we are fighting against.

Bob, I agree 99% of the time, but there are a few exceptions. If I am 100% certain that a terrorist knows of a plot and we can save thousands of lives, the terrorist should be tortured.

Bob, let's say a guy was video taped taking one of your family members. We know 100% this is the man and that is your family member taken. He is a known killer and you now have him in custody. Would you torture him to get the info on where you family member is located? Or let him sit in prison waiting for trial 6 months later because he has the freedom not to speak. If you say no torture in this instance, then I know you are 100% against torture!

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

You make a good point, Bob. And you are right...it's the right way to think.
I would have thought the same, but after 9/11 and losing a friend to the incident changed my view of things.

Hypotheticals are easy to answer... and the answer is no. I would not torture him. Why? Because where's the guarantee when all is said and done that that family member is still alive.

This is the same sort of thing they ask you when you get a security clearance. If the lives of your family were at stake, and the only option for them to live was for you to pass top secret information... would you do it?

The answer is no.

Great reply! You bring up some great points.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

My condolescences eddie... but you have to remember, falling into that trap leads to incidents like Abu Graib. We can't afford to lose our moral ground. The more we show the world we are just bullies who don't care about doing the right thing, the more terrorists we will foster in the long run. That being said, the short term gains from torture do not outweigh the moral right and having a clear conscience.

Thanks, Bob. As I mentioned, you are in the correct way of thinking. I'm just all messed up in the head.