• 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
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.

Obviously, I would frame the issue differently, but yeah, it's a moral choice. I see nothing to gain from condemning people who where trying to do what they felt is right, even though I am disappointed that they chose to do what they did.

I also think that this debate is good for the country in the long run. We need to decide as a nation what is and is not acceptable, and make our laws as clear as possible in that regard.
 
Obviously, I would frame the issue differently, but yeah, it's a moral choice. I see nothing to gain from condemning people who where trying to do what they felt is right, even though I am disappointed that they chose to do what they did.

I also think that this debate is good for the country in the long run. We need to decide as a nation what is and is not acceptable, and make our laws as clear as possible in that regard.

See, you and I have a different outlook on this... terrorist are evil, period, and deserve condemnation. No matter what they think.. they are wrong.
 
See, you and I have a different outlook on this... terrorist are evil, period, and deserve condemnation. No matter what they think.. they are wrong.

OK, saying that terrorism is wrong is one thing.

Saying that torture is right? Not only is that another thing, it is wrong.

It also helps the terrorists recruit by giving them propoganda.

You pick up arms, we WILL kill you. You put them down, we WILL talk to you. Why is torture any part of that conversation?
 
See, you and I have a different outlook on this... terrorist are evil, period, and deserve condemnation. No matter what they think.. they are wrong.

Hmmm...not sure where that came from. I have a very similar view on what you just stated. Terrorists are evil, period, and deserve condemnation. Yup, I agree with that statement 100 %. I would also say I have no sympathy for any terrorist who was tortured. I think though that this is looking at the issue from the wrong end. When it comes to torture, we need to look at ourselves, not at whom we torture, if you understand what I am saying.
 
OK, saying that terrorism is wrong is one thing.

Saying that torture is right? Not only is that another thing, it is wrong.

It also helps the terrorists recruit by giving them propoganda.

You pick up arms, we WILL kill you. You put them down, we WILL talk to you. Why is torture any part of that conversation?

The epic failure of your logic is, the terrorist have ZERO desire to talk to you, don't fear death, and ANYTHING we do other then submit to their cause and convert inspires them.


I know that is an alien concept to some, but that's reality, welcome to it.

And again, if your life was in my hands in a ticking time bomb situation with a bad guy in custody... you'd go home alive.

Where as I'd be buried with all the rest killed because you and others like you, are more afraid of hurting a terrorist then saving innocent people from death.
 
Hmmm...not sure where that came from. I have a very similar view on what you just stated. Terrorists are evil, period, and deserve condemnation. Yup, I agree with that statement 100 %. I would also say I have no sympathy for any terrorist who was tortured. I think though that this is looking at the issue from the wrong end. When it comes to torture, we need to look at ourselves, not at whom we torture, if you understand what I am saying.

My apologies, I thought your earlier statement was referring to terrorist thinking they were just doing the right thing, I misunderstood your point.
 
With it, we are no better than those who would do us harm.

So being suicide bombing, citizen targeting, torturing madmen with no regard for international law is on the same level with those who do not? :roll:

The fact remains that torture is immoral, and the ends do not justify the means. Its not just about survival, we have to remain worthy of it, we have to remain better than them.

Not to mention the fact that engaging in such barbarity causes blow-back, its exactly what Bin Laden wants us to do.

If you cannot defeat us militarily, just scare us into turning our backs on our founding principles, our liberties, on the rest of the world, on the Geneva Conventions and the Magna Carta.

They want us to come down to their level, and you're with them. I for one believe that EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial, even a POS terrorist. I believe in the rights of my enemies.
 
Last edited:
So, here is a real world test.

When we occupied a Suna portion of Baghdad at the height of the surge, we actually brought stability to the area. However, as we put Iraqi forces in charge to move along, we started get hit by small IED's. The tribal leaders knew what was up, but they weren't talking.

Should we have tortured them and made them talk?

Well, as it turns out, the people were terrified of the Iraqi soldiers (who were mostly Shia) and how they would act when the Americans went away. Their solution was to have some of the tribal members plant small IED's that damaged our vehicles but had almost no chance of actually harming an American inside the armored behemoths we drove around in so that we would think there were bad guys in the area and stay.

The problem was diffused by getting the tribal leaders together with Iraqi commanders so that they became comfortable with one another and that allowed us to move onto other areas.

Had we tortured the people who 'knew' what was going on, I have no doubt that happy story would have turned out differently and that a lot of people would have died.

Torture almost always makes things worse. AND it is wrong. And the reality on the ground is not exactly the episode of 24 as it is presented as. In fact, I have yet to see a situation like that. Real counter-terrorism takes time, patience, good intelligence, and a great deal of hard work.
 
Last edited:
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.

As I clearly stated earlier:

First, you have to prove the individual is a terrorist and wasn't simply turned in by a neighbor that hates him, in order to receive a wad of blood money from George Bush.

There's a reason the individuals in Gitmo haven't been tried. It's because we cannot prove they are terrorists. If we could, they'd all have been tried and executed by now, wouldn't they?

I ask again, how's that going? :roll:
 
As I clearly stated earlier:

First, you have to prove the individual is a terrorist and wasn't simply turned in by a neighbor that hates him, in order to receive a wad of blood money from George Bush.

There's a reason the individuals in Gitmo haven't been tried. It's because we cannot prove they are terrorists. If we could, they'd all have been tried and executed by now, wouldn't they?

I ask again, how's that going? :roll:

Wait hold up....

You're willing to execute them? But not torture them?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
The epic failure of your logic is, the terrorist have ZERO desire to talk to you, don't fear death, and ANYTHING we do other then submit to their cause and convert inspires them.


I know that is an alien concept to some, but that's reality, welcome to it.

And again, if your life was in my hands in a ticking time bomb situation with a bad guy in custody... you'd go home alive.

Where as I'd be buried with all the rest killed because you and others like you, are more afraid of hurting a terrorist then saving innocent people from death.

Sure they don't. All that work I did with the Sons of Iraq and the CLC's, the fact that Hizboallah is talking to the British government, the EU, and the UN is 'proof' they won't talk? Just because YOU brand someone a terrorist does not automatically convey upon them the status of mental disability.

There are some who are beyond the pale so to speak. A guy like Bin Laden cannot be reasoned with. He needs to be killed, or captured and locked away, not tortured.

The whole point of terrorism is that the deranged ones tap into a legitimate greivence that they then use to recruit people to go carry out the acts. Why wasn't Bin Laden on the plane that hit the twin towers do you think?

Guess what torture gives guys like Bin Laden? "Heh, the Americans have branded you a terrorists and won't talk to you! We'll make them listen then!!!!" Honestly, whose side are you on?
 
Hmm.

Well, for one, it would depend on what they did and if I consider it torture. As such, since you're stating torture I'm going to assume they did things I consider torture.

If this was the case, I would likely not call for their prosecution, and potentially help fund their defense, but at the same time I would not begrudge the state for taking action against them.

I understand and respect the law and in general find the action reprehensible, and much like in cases of immigration issues where I truly at times feel for the immigrants, the law is the law and the state MUST act for the rule of law to remain intact.

HOWEVER

There is no law that states that I, unlike the State, must remain a completely impartial arbiter of the law. As such, because this so personally relates to me I would understand that I would come at it from a different view.

To give you a similar hypothetical.

If I had a daughter that was raped and a vigilantee went out and found the man that did it and killed him because of a hatred for rapists I would not be leading the call for that man to be prosecuted even though I feel that vigilante murder is wrong. Would I begrudge the State for bringing forth charges even though I have no sympathy for the rapist killed nor hatred or antipathy towards this man for taking the action against him? Absolutely not.

Does the fact that I would not call for prosecution of this vigilante mean that vigilante justice and murder is okay and should be perfectly legal and common practice? Absolutely not.

Nothing in our law does it state that citizens are FORCED to agree with, accept, and support the law vocally in all instances...only that we follow it or accept the consequences.
 
Obviously, I would frame the issue differently, but yeah, it's a moral choice.

I also think that this debate is good for the country in the long run. We need to decide as a nation what is and is not acceptable, and make our laws as clear as possible in that regard.

It is indeed a moral choice. However, you also have to factor in that it doesn't work. I know it makes a group of people feel real macho to torture someone but, that's all it is. It does not work.

Our laws are very clear on this. Torture, and specifically waterboarding, is illegal.
 
It is indeed a moral choice. However, you also have to factor in that it doesn't work. I know it makes a group of people feel real macho to torture someone but, that's all it is. It does not work.

Our laws are very clear on this. Torture, and specifically waterboarding, is illegal.

Positively factually absolutely incorrect. If you wish to say it is not fully reliable or that it is not the most efficient method that'd be one thing. However, you are stating an absolute, that it "does not work", and for that to be true that would mean that it has never, in any instance, in any case, ever produced useful pieces of information which is flatly and patently false. Talking in absolutes such as this degrades your arguments and calls into question the integrity of your stance because you must over exaggerate and over inflate something presumingly to make your case stronger which calls into question the strength of your case in the first place.
 
It doesn't work, and even if it did I regard the argument from utility as a logical fallacy.

Religion "works", communism "works", slavery "works", that is no more to the point at ALL.

Its immoral, its illegal, it creates more terrorists, it produces bad intelligence and puts agents on wild goose chases, it makes us no better than them, and I don't care if it would save my life. I for one would rather remain worthy of survival.

And just because I as an individual, through fear or anger or emotion could be driven to break laws, engage in vigilantism and even torture someone myself; I do not want the state to do so on my behalf.

Especially when said state regards my political positions (libertarian constitutionalist) as an indication of a domestic terrorist, I don't want torture in their toolbox because one day they could come for me.
 
Last edited:
It is indeed a moral choice. However, you also have to factor in that it doesn't work. I know it makes a group of people feel real macho to torture someone but, that's all it is. It does not work.

Our laws are very clear on this. Torture, and specifically waterboarding, is illegal.

Actually no, I don't have to factor that in. If it is immoral, then whether it works or not is irrelevant. To put it another way, being immoral we should not do it, so whether it works or not does not matter, we should never get to the point of finding out if it works or not.
 
No, ADK and others are right, "torturing people" for the sake torture is pointless and doesn't work.

But we're not talking about "torturing" people...

So it's silly on their part.
 
A better thought experiment for this thread would be "and what if this person tortured was an American citizen? And had their rights violated for your life?"
 
It doesn't work, and even if it did I regard the argument from utility as a logical fallacy.

Religion "works", communism "works", slavery "works", that is no more to the point at ALL.

What in the hell are you going on about here? No, seriously, I'm confused.

Torture "works" occasionally with its prime goal, to extract information. It is not efficient, it is not reliable, it is not full proof, but it CAN actually recover useful inforamtion. Does that mean we should do it, or that it's good? No. All it means is that a statement that "It does not work" as an absolute fact is fraudulent and incorrect.

How does this relate to Religion. What instance about "religion" do you mean works? Same with communism? Same with Slavery?

Its immoral, its illegal, it creates more terrorists,it produces bad intelligence and puts agents on wild goose chases, it makes us no better than them, and I don't care if it would save my life. I for one would rather remain worthy of survival.

And all this has to do with the fact that "It does not work" as an absolute is wrong....how? Hell, you're not even talking about it in a general sense. Torture 100 years ago created more terrorists? Torture, if done 50 years from now in a theoretical war with China will magically create "terrorists". You're talking in a little box which is why you speak about it with such vested interest and with emotional bias due to your distaste/hatred for the former administration.
 
Wait hold up....

You're willing to execute them?

Absolutely. If they've been tried in a legitimate court of law, wherein they had fair and legal access to attorneys to fight their case, and if they are found guilty of crimes against our nation and our people, they should without question be put to death.

But not torture them?

Correct. Not only is torture against the law, it is against everything this country stands for. On the other hand, we have laws that I fully and strongly support that call for the execution of those who commit certain crimes. Terrorism is one of them. Torture is another.
 
No, ADK and others are right, "torturing people" for the sake torture is pointless and doesn't work.

Encouraging people through physical methods to divulge information does work...

But they don't want to admit that.

It can work, however you are doing the opposite of what ADK is doing and implying the other end of the extreme, that somehow torture "does" work seemingly every time which is also not the case.
 
A better thought experiment for this thread would be "and what if this person tortured was an American citizen? And had their rights violated for your life?"

My life > their rights.

See, that was easy. Because unlike you, I don't see someone that wishes harm and death on others as deserving of being treated nicely.
 
What in the hell are you going on about here? No, seriously, I'm confused.

Torture "works" occasionally with its prime goal, to extract information. It is not efficient, it is not reliable, it is not full proof, but it CAN actually recover useful inforamtion. Does that mean we should do it, or that it's good? No. All it means is that a statement that "It does not work" as an absolute fact is fraudulent and incorrect.

IMO a method that is not reliable or efficient, and produces more bad intel than good DOESN'T work.

Besides, even if it did work, EVERY TIME; its efficacy would be irrelevant. Did you miss the rest of my post where I said "even if it did work?"

How does this relate to Religion. What instance about "religion" do you mean works? Same with communism? Same with Slavery?

In terms of controlling people, and achieving desired goals.

People made arguments about the economic implications of slavery to defend it, it "worked." Capitalism works MUCH better than communism, but communism still works.

My point was that just because something works is not an argument for its use. The argument from utility is a logical fallacy. People often say cite that religious people are happier, when polled. This could very much be a placebo effect...

And all this has to do with the fact that "It does not work" as an absolute is wrong....how? Hell, you're not even talking about it in a general sense. Torture 100 years ago created more terrorists? Torture, if done 50 years from now in a theoretical war with China will magically create "terrorists". You're talking in a little box which is why you speak about it with such vested interest and with emotional bias due to your distaste/hatred for the former administration.

Have I said anything about the former administration? Or China? I was talking about blow-back as it occurs TODAY and if you want to deny its existence I have nothing to debate with you.

I am arguing against the argument from utility. Forget that I said "it doesn't work," even if it did I would be opposed to it.

I believe that in order to believe in my own rights, I have to support the rights of those who do not agree. This is not an "emotional bias" but a political one; Save your insults for someone who is effected by them.
 
Last edited:
My life > their rights.

See, that was easy. Because unlike you, I don't see someone that wishes harm and death on others as deserving of being treated nicely.

Ummm....obvious point, but torture isn't about death. It is about inflicting pain, a lot of it.

It's really not a quality of life issue either. It is about inflicting pain to get bad information or political power. In either case, not a good idea.
 
My life > their rights.

See, that was easy. Because unlike you, I don't see someone that wishes harm and death on others as deserving of being treated nicely.

If you don't believe in the rights of your enemies, you don't believe in inalienable rights at all. You don't believe that we are all created equal.

What if the terrorist in question was AMERICAN, are their rights meaningless to you just as well? What if you're the alleged terrorist?

No single person's life is worth more than our rights, not even yours.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom