• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you call for prosecution if someone used torture to save your life?

Would you call for prosecution if someone used torture to save your life?

  • Yes, even though I lived, the law is the law and they broke it.

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • No, they did what needed to be done.

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • I have no clue how I'd react in that situation.

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's say... next month there is a big news story of a terrorist attack stopped in the finals stages, like it was gonna go down that Monday before. You learn not only was it going to happen, but that your place of business, the flight you were on... whatever, was the target. You'd be DEAD right now if it had not been stopped.

A few months go by, and it comes out that the information to stop that attack was obtained through water boarding or worse.

Would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.
 
In all seriousness, I would ask to thank the torturers personally, and if for some ungodly reason they were hauled up on charges, I would contributed heavily to their legal defense fund (and would start one if someone didn't get in ahead of me).

I mean that in all seriousness. If somebody tortures and gets information that saves my ass, glory hallelujah and job well done to him.
 
Good question. Even though I wouldn't want them to be prosecuted because they saved my life, the law and principles is more important then my life or what I specifically want.
 
The law is the law and we have it for a reason.

I agree, the law is the law...

However, is your life more important then the law?

Me, yeah my life trumps the law, and if someone who wishes harm on me or my family gets hurt, maimed, suffers unimaginable pain so that I and others might live?

Sucks to be them, but they DID volunteer for it. I'm with Celtic on this one.
 
The law is the law.
 
Last edited:
The law is the law.
Then the law needs to be written so as to congratulate torturers who save lives...particularly mine and doubly so for my family's lives.

Anything less would be a most foul injustice.
 
Then the law needs to be written so as to congratulate torturers who save lives...particularly mine and doubly so for my family's lives.

Anything less would be a most foul injustice.

The law cannot change for every case, however just the circumstance is. There needs to be some consistency.
 
Then the law needs to be written so as to congratulate torturers who save lives...particularly mine and doubly so for my family's lives.

Anything less would be a most foul injustice.

So we should torture people if they save lives??

What about torturing everyone who is convicted of a crime to get them to rat out any co-conspirators?

Torture is not good when a government uses it, even if the outcome will save lives.

You need to at least draw a line somewhere, but that by itself aknowedges that torture is wrong on some level as a way to get information from someone.
 
So we should torture people if they save lives??

What about torturing everyone who is convicted of a crime to get them to rat out any co-conspirators?

Torture is not good when a government uses it, even if the outcome will save lives.

You need to at least draw a line somewhere, but that by itself aknowedges that torture is wrong on some level as a way to get information from someone.
I'll be happy to draw a line somewhere, but when folks redraw the lines whenever it suits their whimsical sense of conscience, then I draw the line wherever it best benefits me and mine.
 
Probably not. It would still be wrong, and it would still be illegal, and I would still recognize those facts. I just can't say that I'd care.
 
I'll be happy to draw a line somewhere, but when folks redraw the lines whenever it suits their whimsical sense of conscience, then I draw the line wherever it best benefits me and mine.

Fair enough but don't expect the law to change with you.
 
Well, I would like to ask how torturing someone would save 'my' life?

"I overheard of a nefarious plot to tie your shoe laces together that could have potentially caused you to fall down the stairs and break your neck. But I put everyone in the office coffee room and gave them endless power point presentations on office safety rules until the 'criminals' broke!"

All matter aside, there are a couple of things to bear in mind with torture, and the first is that it not only doesn't work (which is why evidence of torture negates confessions in court) but it actually costs lives.

On the battlefield, you actually want your enemy to surrender, it means your enemies spirit is broken and the war, and subsequent killing, ends faster. If your enemy believes that he will be tortured upon surrendering, guess what he isn't going to do? Surrender.

That means you have to go shoot him, or bomb him, or something else, which can either result in MORE friendly casualties and more innocent dead civilians. So torture is actually a way to stealing your enemies.

There is also the informational aspect. If torture is widespread, you pretty much give your enemies a freebie. You give them a legitimate grievence by saying we must resist the torturers. You effectively abandon the rule of law that makes you 'reasonable', and you become an unstable threat in the eyes of the world.

Then there is that pesky unreliability. Under torture, you can be made to admit to damb near anything (those that don't simply disappear). Do you think proof of your enemies nefarious activity will be believed if it were cohersed? Do you think 'intelligence' gathered from handlers who have their own ideas about what is happening will not subsequently produce 'evidence' that just 'happens' to support their claims?

And when you act on bad intelligence, as our recent history proves, does that save lives or cost lives?

There is a reason we as a nation abandoned torture and enshrined concepts of the rule of law in our Constitution. Abandoning it because you are scared in bad enough, abandoning it because you are too arrogant to admit that it is wrong, that it is somehow actually right .... that is another thing all together, and far worse.
 
Let's say... next month there is a big news story of a terrorist attack stopped in the finals stages, like it was gonna go down that Monday before. You learn not only was it going to happen, but that your place of business, the flight you were on... whatever, was the target. You'd be DEAD right now if it had not been stopped.

A few months go by, and it comes out that the information to stop that attack was obtained through water boarding or worse.

Would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.


I have no idea how I would react. The core of this question is whether principles matter more than reality and outcomes. Religion is based on principles and we are taught that they should triumph over our own personal needs. Biologically, we want to survive and would allow torture to preserve our own lives. In my own life, I am split. I want to live, but not in a chaotic world where the government is free to torture as it deems necessary.
 
Let's say... next month there is a big news story of a terrorist attack stopped in the finals stages, like it was gonna go down that Monday before. You learn not only was it going to happen, but that your place of business, the flight you were on... whatever, was the target. You'd be DEAD right now if it had not been stopped.

I'll be dead one day, no matter what. I've lived a good, honorable life and have done nothing to be ashamed of. When it's my time, I'll go without regrets.

A few months go by, and it comes out that the information to stop that attack was obtained through water boarding or worse.

Would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

Yes. I believe in the rule of law. Without it, we are no better than those who would do us harm. If I die because our nation was honorable and actually adhered to that rule of law by not torturing people they think might maybe know something, so be it. I'm not really all that important in the grand scheme of things, and neither are you.
 
Yes. But I would not call for it; should be an option.
 
Another, and perhaps better way to ask this question:

Would you submit yourself to be horrifically tortured to save some nameless person .... somewhere .... ? Or maybe not?

Would you submit to being waterboarded 183 times to admit to things that you already admited too (at least according to the FBI)? Would you submit yourself to electrocution? Nails being ripped out? Being kept awake for without sleep for two weeks straight? Beaten? Malnorished? Denied proper medical care so your wounds festered and made you more uncomfortable? Left on in the cold perpetually on the verge of frostbite?

Would you endure that to maybe save 'someone's' life? Or maybe not?

If it happened to YOU would you still think that it was not something that should involve punishment? Because, heh, it MIGHT have saved someone's life ... or maybe not?
 
Glinda,

Terrorist have two rights. They have the right to stop being terrorist and find other ways of bringing about whatever change they seek.

And they have a right to suffer any and all forms of pain and anguish for their behavior in the course fighting terrorist.

It's not a hard choice for me. Life > Terrorist.

It's really that easy.
 
Another, and perhaps better way to ask this question:

Would you submit yourself to be horrifically tortured to save some nameless person .... somewhere .... ? Or maybe not?

Would you submit to being waterboarded 183 times to admit to things that you already admited too (at least according to the FBI)? Would you submit yourself to electrocution? Nails being ripped out? Being kept awake for without sleep for two weeks straight? Beaten? Malnorished? Denied proper medical care so your wounds festered and made you more uncomfortable? Left on in the cold perpetually on the verge of frostbite?

Would you endure that to maybe save 'someone's' life? Or maybe not?

If it happened to YOU would you still think that it was not something that should involve punishment? Because, heh, it MIGHT have saved someone's life ... or maybe not?

Nope, but then, I'm not a terrorist out to kill people.

Why do you treat terrorist like victims? Do you have sympathy for them or agree with them?
 
Why do you treat terrorist like victims? Do you have sympathy for them or agree with them?

First, you have to prove the individual is a terrorist and not some guy who got $2000 from GW Bush for turning in his much-hated neighbor for having an ugly yard.

How's that going, by the way? :roll:
 
First, you have to prove the individual is a terrorist and not some guy who got $2000 from GW Bush for turning in his much-hated neighbor for having an ugly yard.

How's that going, by the way? :roll:

So you're willing to let people die, even yourself or your family... so that someone caught on a battlefield in another country or by our intelligence services... can get his day in court.

Gotcha.

you cannot stand the thought of someone being "unfairly" treated, but dying because of that same person? Hey no problem, all good by Glinda!
 
Nope, but then, I'm not a terrorist out to kill people.

Why do you treat terrorist like victims? Do you have sympathy for them or agree with them?

Well, there is this thing called the rule of law.

As a man who has sworn an oath to the Constitution, so long as my enemy is a threat I can, will, and have sought them out and killed them.

However, once they lay down their arms, they are no longer a threat. And I am bound both by my reason and my oath (my honor), to do them no harm. In fact, this is a good thing.

You see, in the kinds of fighting where you go after terrorists, it is kind of hard to find them. Guess how you find them? Either the people tell you, which they won't if they think you are even worse than the bad guys because you torture people (many of whom are undoubtedly innocent when you started torturing people - sorry!) and if you torture them when you do get them they will one) resist, two) lie, three) make **** up, four) tell you whatever you want to hear. Torture almost never results in in good intelligence and if it is your method of intelligence, it invariably will go awry as good intelligence hits will eventually be corrupted by bad intelligence hits from the resulting use of torture.

Simply put, torture doesn't work. Those who advocate for it, or dehumanize someone in favor of torture usually have something else in mind, and that is usually human political power.

Honestly, the republicans lost exactly because they embraced this crap. Do you honestly think you will get back in power by further embracing dishonor and ... torture? Do you think getting up on a stage and saying, "I will torture for YOU!" (and they wonder WHY the Republican party is getting smaller?)impressed those of us out there actually doing the dirty work of counter-terrorism?

Once again, 'torture' even here, is about political power. Not about intelligence or saving lives. Always has been, always will be.

BTW, you are actually making our job harder, so kindly put a sock in it!!
 
Last edited:
First thing is the obvious point that your scenario is slanted. Is torture more effective than those techniques used without question for many years by our law enforcement agencies? Your scenario assumes yes, though I tend to disagree.

Despite the problems with the scenario I will answer. I like to believe that the US is the best country in the world. That we are on the side of "good". I served this country with that belief in mind, and I think it is common among our service men and women(when you sign up, you agree to follow legal orders from those above you...not just if you agree with them...that is a lot of power to give the government, so you better be sure you can trust the government to at least try and do right). I think it is important that we stay a force for good in the world, and to be a force for good, we need to do the right thing.

I think that torture, or EIT's, or whatever you want to call it, is wrong from a moral standpoint. I think that since torture is wrong from a moral standpoint, any question as to it's effectiveness is irrelevant. Whether it works, or does not work, it is still wrong. I also think that our service people, and many others, have fought, sacrificed and died to make this country a force for good, and to make this country a good place. I think when we engage in an act that is immoral, for the sole reason of our personal security, that it shows a certain amount of disrespect for those who chose to take risks and died to keep this country a good country.

I think that the true measure of morality is whether you can make moral choices when it is hard. Are you willing to accept extra personal risk to do what is moral(note that I am not suggesting that for sure there is extra risk in not torturing, I am just going with your scenario kinda thing)? Based my my way of thinking, the answer for me should be obvious.

Note: I have actually stated that I do not think that any one should be prosecuted over what happened in terms of torture in the Bush administration(assuming there are no huge, unexpected discoveries). I do not think it serves the countries best interest to prosecute people, and that well meaning people trying to do good as best they are able would be caught up in these prosecutions.
 
I believe in the rule of law. Without it, we are no better than those who would do us harm.
With it, we are no better than those who would do us harm.
 
First thing is the obvious point that your scenario is slanted. Is torture more effective than those techniques used without question for many years by our law enforcement agencies? Your scenario assumes yes, though I tend to disagree.

Despite the problems with the scenario I will answer. I like to believe that the US is the best country in the world. That we are on the side of "good". I served this country with that belief in mind, and I think it is common among our service men and women(when you sign up, you agree to follow legal orders from those above you...not just if you agree with them...that is a lot of power to give the government, so you better be sure you can trust the government to at least try and do right). I think it is important that we stay a force for good in the world, and to be a force for good, we need to do the right thing.

I think that torture, or EIT's, or whatever you want to call it, is wrong from a moral standpoint. I think that since torture is wrong from a moral standpoint, any question as to it's effectiveness is irrelevant. Whether it works, or does not work, it is still wrong. I also think that our service people, and many others, have fought, sacrificed and died to make this country a force for good, and to make this country a good place. I think when we engage in an act that is immoral, for the sole reason of our personal security, that it shows a certain amount of disrespect for those who chose to take risks and died to keep this country a good country.

I think that the true measure of morality is whether you can make moral choices when it is hard. Are you willing to accept extra personal risk to do what is moral(note that I am not suggesting that for sure there is extra risk in not torturing, I am just going with your scenario kinda thing)? Based my my way of thinking, the answer for me should be obvious.

Note: I have actually stated that I do not think that any one should be prosecuted over what happened in terms of torture in the Bush administration(assuming there are no huge, unexpected discoveries). I do not think it serves the countries best interest to prosecute people, and that well meaning people trying to do good as best they are able would be caught up in these prosecutions.
AND that is the crux of it really, it's a moral choice.

Do you let people die, or risk people dying for the comfort of someone you have a pretty good clue is a terrorist.

For me, the answer is, no, you save lives and prevent the terrorist from carrying out his attack.

Would I prefer we never have to use such, CERTAINLY I do. However, they force it on us, not the other way around.
 
Back
Top Bottom