Gandhi>Bush

Do you think it is okay to torture prisoners for the sake of gathering information to save lives, to gain strategical advantag, or anything at all? Please do not make this a thread about if the US has or has not tortured any one. I just want to have a discussion about your moral position on the matter.

__________________
I will let no man drag me down so low as to make me hate him. - Booker T. Washington

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed. - Mohandas K Gandhi

http://img287.echo.cx/img287/1156/ghandibush5kp.jpg

Props to ArchEnemy. My signature rocks hard.

SixStringHero

No.

John McCain who was POW claimed that under extreme duress and torture anyone can break and one would be willing to make up anything just to keep from being tortured anymore.

Of course we still have to put torture into context, and I believe anything that causes pain or fear of death should be considered torture.

__________________
Real Eyes Realize Real Lies

FinnMacCool

No.

Why?

Because if we torture prisoners, the moral line between what we do and what our enemies do disappears. Once that happens, more people will start to question our own government and our own country. People will have to question their own beliefs and nobody wants to do that.

__________________
"Idealists foolish enough to throw caution to the winds have advanced mankind and have enriched the world.

"The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue. "

"The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather understand one another. "
-Emma Goldman

jallman

Oh dear, I do believe I am about to be the bad guy again. Here goes anyway...

The discretionary use of torture under strict adherence to specific guidlelines is perfectly acceptable practice. Torture used in circumstances where strategic information can be gained and for verification purposes of already suspected intelligence, seems perfectly logical to me. Torture should be conducted by a team of highly trained interrogators, always with medical personnel on hand. It should be reserved, not for the average soldier, but for high ranking POW's who would be privy to necessary information. Torture of the average infantryman is pointless and simply cruel. However, captured strategists, politicians, and espionage agents may have vital information in a time of war. It should only come along with the territory that they would be subject to forceful interrogation which would utilize physical or mental torture.

__________________
McCain / Palin 08

Obama's idea of "change" is a 40 year Washington insider who has been recycled on the presidential ticket twice now. Lawwwd Change, yes laaaawd change.

FinnMacCool

Jailman that explanation might MIGHT be perfectly acceptable depending on what exactly are the torture methhods which are used? I have no problem with a forceful interrogation but I think that torture goes way too far.

The Mark

No.

But it all depends on what you personaly define torture as.

For example, if someone was being yelled at and/or shaken to try and get him/her/it to give information (like you see on police/detective shows on TV).......that could be considered some form of mental torture by someone.

I would say almost anything short of causing the interrogation subject external/internal damage or causing him/her/it large amounts of pain (but no damage), would be torture.

Also, I would like to add mental damage, but there you get into a gray area, because some good lawyer could say you caused him/her/it mental damage by yelling at him/her/it.

There is no simple answer.

Resident_Bitch

Yes, why not. Have you not seen what happens to our (US) troops that have been captured? 99.9% of the nut bags out there don't care about "Morals or political rules" set by NATO or whom ever else. Usually when we are talking prisoners and torture its a time of WAR. There are no rules of war. What needs to be done should be done and if that includes a little pain then so be it.

__________________
Why do I have to swear on the Bible in
court when the Ten Commandments cannot be
displayed in a federal building?

Words to live by
DONT BE A SKID MARK ON THE UNDERPANTS OF SOCIETY.

would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

FinnMacCool

Exactly my point Resident_Bitch (interesting name I might add). When it comes to morality, the line between who is right and who is wrong and who is more civilized and who is less starts to blur when we start using the same tactics of our enemies to achieve our goals.

When you start to do that, the reason for why were fighting starts to blur also and that is bad for morale

purplehaze

The whole point is that you are torturing someone because you do not know what they know. How can you possibly know if someone you are torturing knows anything important. You have to guess and this means you will undoubtedly torture people that know nothing.

So you think anyone with a bar on their shoulder that gets captured during a war should be subjected to torture based on the slight possibility they may know something? Sending the message to our enemies that we condone torture, even in extreme cases, is bad. You may argue that the enemy we are currently fighting will torture Americans either way. But this policy could hurt us in the future if we become involved in a larger conflict.

TurkSol

of course not , they are human as well , as thou they made crimes etc ..if we torture them ..they will start a hatrens against the people outside ..and when they are out..they will be worse for the society

__________________
Peace at home , Peace in the world .
..... Mustafa Kemal Ataturk....