Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
As newspapers and documentary films continue to discuss waterboarding and other controversial treatments of suspected terrorists, the debate over torture remains intense. Some insist that desperate times call for desperate measures, but others are baffled that such methods could exist in a civilized society. Is physical persuasion ever an appropriate means of interrogation?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Government Officials Must Use Minimum Force Necessary
So...your verdict?
In all politeness, the archaic diction is a little bit peculiar. And so much time is spent qualifying, the point never seems to be made. I think the real factual support was cut off from the bottom, perhaps...
Anyways, for someone against the issue, this person seems to be for it on a qualifier. No kidding the government is allowed to "use the sword," and no kidding the least possible force should be used. We aren't going to be keelhauling anybody if we don't need to, and I would like to say that we really don't need to (keelhaul, that is). However, as far as the argument goes, that's FOR torture, not against it. It's not exactly nice, but the situation may very well call for it. And the speaker acknowledges this. But the speaker finishes by referring to the reasons why the "against" movement is stronger. Forget which side is winning, why should we or should we not torture.
To get to that debate, YES, I am in total agreement. If torture is found necessary, it should be done if the benefits are worth the moral injury and bad public relations. And yes, we should only be torturing as much as we need to. We don't need to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies, because 72 virgins and a seat in heaven would still be totally worth it to them. We can't top that, no doubt. We need to make the choice, though, regarding the moral standpoint: is our moral reputation more important than our physical safety? There is no solid line on this, and no definitive answer, which is why we need to ask ourselves this in every circumstance. We need to use our heads a little more, and determine whether or not the situation absolutely calls for it.
And responding to Tannerj, I think you're forgetting that torture is not a punishment. It's a means of getting information. State troopers in a state has nothing to do with torture; that's finding a criminal, not dealing with one. And as far as interviewing the nuisances, they need to be alive to testify. Once we get that testimony, there is no further need to torture. You're thinking retribution, which is NOT a good reason to torture. We are NOT going to just start flailing criminals and terrorists, because if the UN doesn't hate us enough already, they sure will once we start trashing our prisoners. We are only getting information, not making them "pay for their misdeeds," OK?
- Invalid Screen Name
February 25, 2009 11:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.