61% of Americans think torture is okay?

[The Real Hawkeye]

That, too. No matter how heinous the crime, it's still the America I grew up in that gives due process and a fair trial, not secret prisons and torture.

It says...or said, now, "Look at us, we are the shining example, we are BETTER than you scum, because we give a fair trial to the accused, we stand for freedom and justice."

Now we say "well, we need to be 'realistic', and it's a 'different kind of war', so we're going to use the same methods you scum do."

That just lowers us.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you are disagreeing with my point, but then agreeing with it. Are you sure you understand that I am one of those opposed to torture? I thought I was pretty clear.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

I must also add that I disagree with the notion that we've become the enemy if we torture a suspect.

Some psychological and physical beatings don't make us Bosnian warlords, I don't care how you feel about it.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's quite typical in charged issues like this to examine both ends from the most extreme of angles. All of the anti's are screaming how we're violating rights by yanking innocent people from their homes and sticking knives through their hands, and the pro's are screaming that we're saving thousands of lives. Are both true? Yes, are both extreme? Of course.

The answer, to me, is somewhere in the middle. Should we make absolutely sure that, before we school some scum bag, the person we're doing this to is, on some level, guilty of something? Sure.

But I definitely think we need to be tougher on some of these people when we want answers. It's no incentive to prisoners to talk when the worst we have for them is "You're just going to have to sit in your cell even MORE than you were before."

Exactly.

The original post was deceptively extreme, too.

38% of respondents said "Often or sometimes."

36% said "Never."

26% said "Rarely or not sure."

Those results are not "what have we become?" numbers. Only 11% of respondents said "often."

Furthermore, even "waterboarding" is not the same method that Al Qaeda uses.

 

[Manedwolf]

I'm not sure, but it seems like you are disagreeing with my point, but then agreeing with it. Are you sure you understand that I am one of those opposed to torture? I thought I was pretty clear.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[ArmedBear]

One more thing...

Freedom and justice don't mean a hill of horsecrap if we're a smoldering heap of radioactive rubble. Survival DOES matter, in the real world. This ain't some mythological novel, and dead people are really dead.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Torturing bona fide terrorists doesn't bother me at all. The moment you choose to kill countles innocents is the moment you give up any expectation of good will from society.

There's a bit of a challenge in distinguishing between bona fide terrorists and mere suspects. But supposing the distinction is made correctly, I'd torture away and sleep well that night.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Torturing bona fide terrorists doesn't bother me at all. The moment you choose to kill countles innocents is the moment you give up any expectation of good will from society.

There's a bit of a challenge in distinguishing between bona fide terrorists and mere suspects. But supposing the distinction is made correctly, I'd torture away and sleep well that night.

Naturally, anyone known and proven to be a terrorist deserves an eternity of torture. My concern is with the torturing of suspects before they ever reach a trial, let alone a hearing before a judge or even a consult with a lawyer. Remember, as far as the government is concerned, the label for someone believed to be a terrorist, but who has yet to be tried and convicted, is a suspect. Anyone can be a suspect. That's why we have the right to a lawyer, facing your accuser, trial by jury of you peers. Because virtually anyone can be thought to be a terrorist by the government. That includes you and your mother. How we treat those suspected by our government of crimes is one of the fundamental distinctions between us and the bad guys. Or, at least it was until recently.

 

[Finch]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.

 

[ArmedBear]

Naturally, anyone known and proven to be a terrorist deserves an eternity of torture. My concern is with the torturing of suspects before their crimes ever reach a trial, let alone a hearing before a judge or even a consult with a lawyer. Remember, as far as the government is concerned, the label for someone believed to be a terrorist, but who has yet to be tried and convicted, is a suspect. Anyone can be a suspect. That's why we have the right to a lawyer, facing your accuser, trial by jury of you peers. Because virtually anyone can be thought to be a terrorist by the government. That includes you and your mother. How we treat those suspected by our governmetn of crimes is one of the fundamental distinctions between us and the bad guys. Or, at least it was until recently.

Agreed, totally.

The only thing I disagreed with here was the notion that we are morally obligated to forbid torture as an option in every single situation.

Note that Manedwolf has never responded to my questions; he has merely tried to change the subject.

The subject was NOT secret prisons, routine torture, etc., which I oppose.

It was whether torture in some rare instance will make us no better than the enemy.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.

Finch, you make me very sad my friend.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

The problem I have with our policies on foreign enemies is that they rely on our soft handedness when they do things. They know how burdened we are by lawyers and paperwork. It bothers me, because, and I'm sorry to say this, there people in this world that do NOT respond to the things you say to them. Sitting down and reasoning gives them nothing more than a target that won't fire back.

Look at Srebrenica. The UN sent people in to speak with them, they sent them back in parts. I don't want the US to, necessarily, flop right over to the other side and start imprisoning a suspect's family to get him to talk. However, I would prefer more toughness in our handling of prisoners.

 

[rick_reno]

I support it - but only if they put it on Pay for View TV.

 

[Waitone]

Idiotic discussion.

Defining torture is the first step in debating its advisability.

 

[ArmedBear]

Idiotic discussion.

Defining torture is the first step in debating its advisability.

Playing Christina Aguilera when someone can't leave the area is definitely torture.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed, totally.

The only thing I disagreed with here was the notion that we are morally obligated to forbid torture as an option in every single situation.

Note that Manedwolf has never responded to my questions; he has merely tried to change the subject.

The subject was NOT secret prisons, routine torture, etc., which I oppose.

It was whether torture in some rare instance will make us no better than the enemy.

ArmedBear, I think I know what situations you are thinking of. Remember the first Dirty Harry movie? Remember the college football stadium scene, when Inspector Callahan was "interrogating" the suspect? That's what you are talking about, right? This guy was clearly a guilty party, and Harry gave him all the consideration he deserved in questioning him on the whereabouts of the little girl. But we know the guys is guilty only because the makers of the movie allowed us to follow him around and see him do it on film. In the real world, governments tend to be sure someone is guilty, even when they don't really know for sure. That's why we have all the protections we have.

 

[ArmedBear]

ArmedBear, I think I know what situations you are thinking of. Remember the first Dirty Harry movie? Remember the college football stadium scene, when Inspector Callahan was "interrogating" the suspect? That's what you are talking about, right? This guy was clearly a guilty party, and Harry gave him all the consideration he deserved in questioning him on the whereabouts of the little girl. But we know the guys is guilty only because the makers of the movie allowed us to follow him around and see him do it on film. In the real world, governments tend to be sure someone is guilty, even when they don't really know for sure. That's why we have all the protections we have.

Agreed, also. In the scenario I described, there was also no question of guilt.

Such incidents do happen in the real world, though rarely. While a terrorist attack is or is very likely to be in progress, the rules are different, just like it's justifiable to shoot someone who has broken into my living room, but only while he is there and poses a threat. Once he's gone, and I see him at the liquor store, it's murder if I shoot him.

The poll did not ask all the stuff that has been read into it, though. It's a lousy poll.

I just don't think that the question "What have we become?" is justified by people having mixed feelings about whether and when torture might be necessary to save lives -- which is all the results showed.

Addendum-- There is also a difference, in my mind, between "tying the hands" of law enforcement officers, which I fully support, and "tying the hands" of our military, which I generally don't. War and law enforcement are different. And yes, the corollary question of what exactly the "war on terror" really is, is appropriate, but beyond the scope of this text.

 

[Lupinus]

to me it depends on the situation and just what we are calling "torture"

If you beat a confession out of a guy to get him to confess to a crime, absoloutly not. But if say you catch some scumbag who you know for a fact knows where some little girl he kidnapped is hidden and if he doesn't talk she will die from dehydration? My friend give me a knife some thin strips of metal and some pliars and I will have her location in under ten minutes, same goes if a terrorist has information that will keep oh say a nuclear bomb from going off at a football game....but then agian I have been called a sick sadistic nut in the past.

Basicly if it means peoples lives will be saved at the cost of some pain to some scumbag or terrorist I am not agiasnt torture at all. I am however agianst it for purposes of confessions for prosecution and things of that nature.

Then there is understanding just what torture is. I don't consider "truth juice" sodium penthonal or however it is spelled torture and would cover most situations just fine. Neither do I consider blairing of music they hate, making them sleep on the floor, etc torture. Maybe I just am willing to allow a lot of things if it means innocent peoples lives are spared for the discomfort of a scumbag or a terrorist.

Now the problem is just what defining the right time on a large scale to use it effectivly is hard to do and regulate. It does leave the door open for abuse if you allow just any common cop or private to beat some guy half to death for information. Just how to prevent abuses from happening is tricky and I will admit I don't quite have an answer on how to keep it from being abused once that door is open.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed, also. In the scenario I described, there was also no question of guilt.

According to whom?

Such incidents do happen in the real world, though rarely. While a terrorist attack is or is very likely to be in progress, the rules are different, just like it's justifiable to shoot someone who has broken into my living room, but only while he is there and poses a threat. Once he's gone, and I see him at the liquor store, it's murder if I shoot him.

Yes, you may shoot someone to stop them from committing murder. That is not the same as the government torturing suspects, and if the government is absolutely sure that you are a terrorist, but you have yet to have a trial, the word for that is suspect.

 

[Camp David]

I have no right to tell those fighting the War on Terror how to win it. If these soldiers need to torture the enemy, fine... just let me know when the war is won.

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I’m surprised the pro-torture numbers aren’t higher—but be careful what you wish for. Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?

~G. Fink

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I’m surprised the pro-torture numbers aren’t higher—but be careful what you wish for. Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?

~G. Fink

+1

 

[Lupinus]

Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?

A bunch of pissed off terrorists with a lot of guns brains ammo and the ability to hit a quarter at over a hundred yards

....ok I'm not sure I can but I'm sure at least a few of us could lol

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have no right to tell those fighting the War on Terror how to win it. If these soldiers need to torture the enemy, fine... just let me know when the war is won.

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.

You'd have to be a committed pacifist to oppose torturing terrorists. I'd personally torture a terrorist just for the fun of it. The issue is whether we should be allowing our government to torture us when they are highly confident that we are terrorists. Before you decide on any new power to give to the government, first apply it to yourself in a mental experiment, and only then decide.

 

[Iain]

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.

I like how you use the word terrorist in there. I thought the great question here was about whether or not we are certain, and how we can be certain, that those that get tortured are terrorists. Of course they confess under torture, I'd probably confess to shooting Abraham Lincoln if subjected to hours of Britney (who is, by the way, far worse than Christina).

Imagine yourself the innocent guy having his fingernails being pulled out. That's no more emotive a request than yours.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Let's set aside, for the moment, the question of how to know whether or not somebody really is a terrorist.

Hypothetically, let's say that we have a guy who really, truly is a terrorist. Would it be wrong to torture him to save innocent lives? Would it be wrong to torture him even if there aren't any lives to save?