 
|
Scott K
|
No. Information obtained from tortured prisoners is tenuous at best. A tortured person will tell you anything you want to hear to make it stop. The other issue is our reputation, both at home and abroad. Torture isn't what the US is supposed to be about.
We have signed the Geneva Convention and presented ourselves as the beacon of democracy, freedom, and individual rights - none of which is in line with torture. |
|
Jessie
|
Torture should never be used on anyone.
There is no secondary moral algebra of laws and soldiery. It is the most profound of wrongs in every case. There are many worse things than dying. Becoming a torturer of other people is one of those things. |
|
(R)
|
Absolutely! That's the one way to get information from people who know secrets of who wants to or is going to try to kill us. If they don't speak, that's their problem. Besides....we feed our POW's and keep them with roofs over their heads. Look over in Iraq at all the innocent troops and journalists who have been taken by the terrorists. It's practically hell on earth for those people! The least we can do is immitate this practice on them to get valuable information. Good question. I'm looking forward to a lot of differing responses. |
|
HQ
|
Personally no |
|
Cybrespyydre
|
No |
|
leadfoot_willie
|
If we sit back and allow these rules to be changed, then it won't be long till another blood thirsty president comes along and says. "It's not enough to torture the prisoner, we can get so much more out of them if we torture their family".
This could really escalate to a "humanity" with no compassion.
I honestly think, if we compromise any degree of humanity, then the enemy has won. We would be no better than them. |
|
coragryph
|
Personally, I think it is a very bad idea, because it has a long history of being proven ineffective for information gathering.
But if you're going to do it, and if we're going to sink to the same level as the terrorists we claim to be fighting, we should at least change the laws so that it is not illegal, even if it remains immoral. |
|
opheliaissaved
 |
Torture is unreliable. Persuasion by knowing how to use psychology works much better. |
|
freeliberation
 |
If you torture someone whom you think has vital information and they actually don't, their going to say anything!! Torture doesn't work, although I'd say a lot of it goes on, no matter whether it's allowed or not... I'm sure with all the technology we have today there has to be other ways & you have to remember that your talking about prisoners of war, no matter what they should be treated proper!.... |
|
redneckgal
|
Yes!! These guys aren't scared of dying, since they think they're gonna get 40 virgins or something. Inflicting pain is the only way to get the information. What else are you going to do? Just let them rot in prison or kill them, while we get another terrorist attack? |
|
Lindsey
 |
no-- we dont want other countries using force on our soldiers why do the same? |
|
Mary
|
no |
|
heart breaker
|
nobody deserves 2 be tortured |
|
Poofter (an old Zappa reference)
|
Torture does not elicit accurate information and it opens American troops up for the same kind of treatment.
One the one hand we are told by Monkeyboy Bush that we don't torture, but, on the other hand, our rigorous questioning has prevented plots against us. (But we can't tell you what those plots were....classified.)
It is time for Congress to act like they have some nads and stand up to the Christofascist that is in the white house. |
|
Allen G
 |
Well quite personally if the guy knows something that is related to a plot to kill thousands of people.....
torture is an acceptable form of extracting that information. I support this for two reasons:
1. It is an effective method for getting crucial information for the safety of innocent human life
2. It is an effective deterrant for keeping people from engaging in sucide-bomb-like plots for killing innocent human life. They can deal with dieing.. but living and suffering severly might be the only thing that would deter these types. |
|
big-brother
|
Why dont you ask Senator MCcain.
He was a Vietnam POW who was tortured.
Im sure most people will say yes, until it''s their turn.
Whats next, police torturing petty criminals for info?
Its a crime against humanity. |
|
soadfan888
 |
In my opinion if force is necessary to get the information then torture is ok
however if force is not necessary then we should not use torture but you definetly need to define torture |
|
truckman
|
why not .you can bet any u.s. soldier caught will not be treated any differently. |
|
wwclark
|
My question to this is what do you consider torture? Were our soldiers wrong to take degrading pictures of POW's? YES. Were our soldiers wrong to put what some people consider a holy book (Koran) in the toilet? Yes....... Is this torture? NO torture is when they cut our soldiers heads off on T.V. We have enemy combatants hiding and firing from behind women and children.The Geneva Convention should be suspended when ever we fight a country that does not subscribe to it. That way the rules are the same for everyone. Sorry for the rant but this just bugs me. |
|
cantcu
|
No! Not physical!
We generally find what we need on the person or on the battlefield! A person being tortured will usually tell you anything, which isn't accurate, or they will die!
Though torture is illegal, it should NEVER be used on a DETAINEE as they are not POW's and they have not been charged!
What would your view be on the torture of US military officers being held captive in North Vietnam? |
|
mrcricket1932
 |
One must also consider; no where in history has the enemy abided by the rules of war.. then we have a new kind of enemy that is not even representative of any country.. The Geneva accord doesn't really apply anyway. Further, what kind of torture have you been exposed to on TV and blog,with beheadings etc. We would be the only country or group that would be sincerely following those rules, even when they are as non-specific as they are. |
|
Egroeg_Rorepme
|
No cause some can be immune to torture and it actually makes them reveal nothing. It's called pretending you aren't being tortured but your torturer is. |
|
Esma
|
No. Firstly, it breaks the Geneva Convention. Secondly, you can easily get false information under torture, as they could just be telling you what you "want" to hear. |
|
leikevy
|
Tough question and not smoething I cant say yes or no difinitively.
But I am leaning yes. As a country, we have the duty to protect ourselves before protecting others. Secondly, if the prisoners knew that we had a weakness of not torturing people, then they are more resolved in not answering. The point of torture is, 1 to inflict pain, and 2, the give the feel that we will do anything to get what we want.
On the other hand, i do feel bad if someone innocent was tortured just to make sure we got everything out of him. I would say, it would depend on what was at stake. |
|
Chainsaw
 |
I doubt that anyone on Answers is qualified to answer this. We must get information out of these terrorists. If it means humiliating them, fine. If it means making them unconfortable, fine. I know that beating them is not the most effective way to get information. I am sick of the way Democrats and stupid Republicans like McCain want to coddle the terrorists and handcuff our ability to conduct the war. |
|
answerer
|
Oh ya that sounds like a moral country. |
|
Transuranic
 |
I have already posted a question about Eastenders. |
|
daydoom
|
YES! |
|
Repub-lick'n
|
I really think Bush and Cheney should be "questioned", and THEN let them decide. |
|
Shannon H
|
No. Torture is a poor source of intel. Period. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
