A Grave Threat
The first condition is particularly interesting. A war may be just if the damage inflicted by the aggressor would be lasting, grave and certain (think of a rogue nation threatening to use a nuclear weapon in its possession). In the same way, torture might be justified if a prisoner is known to have information that would certainly save many innocent lives that are threatened because of the prisoner’s actions.
We can think of the proverbial ticking time-bomb scenario, in which a captured terrorist has hidden a bomb that will detonate in a couple hours in an unknown location. This is the extreme example, but it is not as rare as some suggest. Israeli authorities say they have thwarted at least 90 terrorist attacks by using what the United Nations labels torture but what Israel has called necessary physical coercion (including physical restraints and sleep deprivation).
Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou has admitted to waterboarding al-Qa'ida suspect Abu Zubaydah while attempting to obtain life-saving information. Kiriakou used the technique, which is unpleasant enough to force prisoners to talk but leaves no permanent injury, and broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds. The suspect answered every question from that day on (which speaks to another criterion under Just War Theory—that there must be serious prospects of success). The agent says he has no doubt that the information provided by Zubaydah “stopped terror attacks and saved lives.”
While there is a moral imperative not to use “whatever means necessary,” it may be permissible—even obligatory—to use enhanced interrogation to extract necessary information when lives are at stake.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It seems like torture is acceptable as long as the situation calls for 'enhanced interrogation techniques', for example if a country is about to use nuclear bombs. Yet this is clearly a faulty statement because even after Saddam Hussein was removed from power abuses went on at the Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib. The loose guidelines of when to use torture clearly contribute to its misuse as does the lack of judgment of those in power.
Mangueken, your argument seems less reserved and controlled here than elsewhere. The "hypothetical" rogues referred to I beleve are just that: hypotheticals. Really, I'd be more into attacking the author on his use of maybe and perhaps rather than demanding that he name a specific. And try not to defend your argument by saying "Israel did, they might not have, but they wanted to." I think we all know why Israel would have wanted to build a nuke, seeing as several of its neighbors are doing the same.
I really think that the dramatic ticking-time-bomb scenario is getting a bit cliched. And yes, Israel is always being attacked, but that doesn't automatically make the study weighted. Israel should be more questionable because, given the history of...how shall I phrase this...extreme dislike and violence between Israel and its neighbors, I'm not so sure whether or not Israeli torture is the same as our torture. To be specific, would two mortal enemies be more prone to "nice" torture or "give me a @%#$ing name or else" torture?
Now, as far as that one specific example goes, I'm interested to find out how any other examples go. The fact that one terrorist broke in under a minute and gave information from that point on is really not much of a statement. One person? Are we talking Al-Qaida elite or some radical they picked up off the streets? And what tells you that the rest of the terrorists will break like that and give reliable information? That's a hasty generalization, and a pretty sad one at that. Not that you should have more evidence to make a reliable conclusion, I hope? (American Values, you'd better be shaking your heads "no" emphatically right now.)
The effects of torture on others and the efforts to save American lives are valid points, and I agree with them. I support torture only if it's necessary and there's a good chance of actually accomplishing something. It should only happen once in a long time, if at all.
However, this argument is really just a nice explanation for hypotheticals. Where they lack evidence, they use rhetoric and vague "what-if's." Where they do have evidence, it is concluded either too quickly or in circumstances not necessarily applicable. Logically sound, but it could do with some more support and explanation.
I can see the rationalization behind the given examples, but torture should only be used as a last resort in only rare and specific cases. Using torture to obtain information is not only morally wrong but the information is not always correct and can’t be trusted. Also, torture not only can have a long lasting effect on the prisoners but also the soldier or person who is doing the torturing. This person is not hurting another at an indirect level as seen in combat but they are torturing them directly, seeing the effects clearly in front of them. Seeing this can have a long lasting effect on the person, specifically mentally. It is not alright to torture another person, but it is just as not morally correct to mentally torture the soldiers who are doing the torturing.
i think that only in the very rare cases are and should be allowed to use such treatment because we are all still human no matter what people do but if a terroist has info that could save my family then by all means id do it
Obviously the U.S. isn't going around torturing/interrogating innocent civilians. The people that are getting interrogated most of the time are terrorists that have dangerous information. I believe that if they get caught doing something that will harm american lives, we have the duty to get the information they know to stop them from hurting us.
I argee with mander on this one that we need to do what we need to do to stop people or groups who will and want to kill as many americans as possible
Anthony (Garza)
His arguments are weak.
A rogue nation with a nuclear bomb? Would he be referring to our great, wise, patient caring Hindu Indians and Muslim Pakistanis? Two countries who have for years come closer than the US or USSR ever came to blasting each other off the face of the earth. Or is he referring to Israel, who worked secretly and illegally with the South African apartheid regime to build one. I'm not sure if they actually built one, but they had intent on building one. Anyway, we live in a finite sized planet, we actually know the countries how about naming these "hypothetical" rogues with nuclear bombs.
There is a lot of scientific work that Israelis do which is valid, and I am only aware of a tiny portion. However, there is no way I can take their "objective" word on torture to count for much. They have a higher success rate at getting information on attacks because they have stolen so much land that they can expect to be attacked. Talk about a weighted scientific study!
Please try harder to come up with real reasons why I should accept treating people worse than animals. I know I have set an unfair level of acceptance, but it's weighted to the humanity side of human not the base animal side.