• 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!

Does defense justify torture?

Does defense justify torture?


  • Total voters
    49
I forget the context, but I think I was being picky and objecting that the torture could fail in addition to objecting to context.

nothing in the world has a 100% success rate (except Chuck Norris). that being said, the last 5 directors of the CIA, to include those that served under Republican and Democrat Presidents, have all stated that (whether you think shoving someone's shoulders into a fake wall is torture or not) the enhanced interrogation program saved countless lives and gave us more information on Al-Qaeda than all other sources combined.
 
It is false dichotomy since the scenario given has only two allowed answers. Torture the terrorist or allow NYC to blow up. It assumes there are no other valid methods by which NYC can be prevented from being nuked. That's what makes it false dichotomy. Perhaps there are many other methods to do so. There are a lot of assumptions made in the "Torture a terrorist or NYC blows up" false dichotomy including that the authorities have a terrorist with pertinent information on the disarming of the bomb in question, that there is no other way to disarm the bomb, that you can get reliable information from said terrorist under duress, etc. It's not enough to make generalized torture policy off of. How many innocent people get tortured? How much viable information comes out of torture? Of course we most likely would never have access to the full statistics as I'm sure much of it is classified. Still the point remains. There are well too many uncertainties involved with any actual terrorist case and the situations under which the false dichotomy is presented is one of low probability.

It's a moot argument anyway. Torture is illegal in this country.
 
okay, but now you are ignoring probabilities.

waterboard the prisoner: 98% chance he will tell you in time

pretty-please the prisoner: 1% chance he will tell you in time

offer to bribe the prisoner: 5% chance he will tell you in time

search NYC: 5% chance of finding it, with a 0.5% chance of finding and disarming it

search NYC while ordering an evacuation: 2.5% chance of finding the bomb, 100% chance of mass-panic, riots, killings, etc

Statistics are completely made up, 42% of the population knows that.

But seriously, it really sounds like you completely made up those numbers.
 
It's a moot argument anyway. Torture is illegal in this country.

Like something being illegal would ever stop the government. Who throws them in jail if they break the law?
 
I don't care what other countries think any more. Make fun of the USA, but as soon as their butts are in a sling, who do they run to? Uh huh.

It's way simplistic for me. Kind of like if you enter my home and harm anyone in it. I'll do whatever it takes to protect everyone there. Yes, I'll call 911. You just have to determine if I make the call before or after I've dealt with you. Same theory for me on torture and the US and our enemies. You do whatever it takes. WE come first.
 
I don't care what other countries think any more. Make fun of the USA, but as soon as their butts are in a sling, who do they run to? Uh huh.

.

that's the part that gets me. everyone wants the US to mind its own business...UNTIL the tsunami hits their country, or the earthquake, or the volcano erupts or some madman starts killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens. Then they want us to spend our money and resources to bail them out.

well, I say "**** them" let them fend for their freakin selves from now on. If you don't want to accept our interference in your life...don't ask for/take our charity.
 
It's way simplistic for me. Kind of like if you enter my home and harm anyone in it. I'll do whatever it takes to protect everyone there. Yes, I'll call 911. You just have to determine if I make the call before or after I've dealt with you. Same theory for me on torture and the US and our enemies. You do whatever it takes. WE come first.
Agreed. About the only practical effect of the "no harsh interrogation" rule is that we are no longer taking as many prisoners as we used to. If we can't get information out of them, there isn't much point in feeding them or releasing them to try again.
 
Statistics are completely made up, 42% of the population knows that.

But seriously, it really sounds like you completely made up those numbers.

i did. would you argue that pretty-pleasing a dedicated jihadist has a greater than 1% chance that he will suddenly decide to discard his faith, give up his life, end what he's worked for, turn on his closest comrades, and give you what you need to know?

would you argue that it has a greater than 25% chance (i sure as hell would not). ?

i don't mind discussing alternatives, but let's not pretend that in a matter where time has priority, that you shouldn't account for likelihood of rapid success.

KSM, for example, was interrogated using multiple techniques, and he basically told us to go F ourselves. when you are working with the higher level guys, you are working with people who have received interrogation resistance training, the same a we do to our own people at SERE school.

then we dunked his head under water.

then he told us everything we wanted to know, and quite a few things that we didn't even know to ask. that information was invaluable and objectively saved many civilian lives.
 
Last edited:
Amnesty International wants Bush prosecuted for his roll in waterboarding. One of the defenses of Bush I have come across is that torture is when used to defend innocent lives. I will admit, it is an interesting question for me to explore.

What is your opinion?

Waterboarding is not "torture" according to legal standards. As far as whether they should have done it or not, non-uniformed foreign enemy terrorist combatants are not protected by US law or US foreign treaties, including the Geneva conventions. I have to go to the dentist tomorrow and have a couple caveties filled. Give me the choice, I'd much rather be waterboarded.
 
Does defense justify torture?

Of course not. Even asking the question is irresponsible - you might as well ask if genocide is acceptable in "defense."
 
Back
Top Bottom