So, it's been a while since we've had an interesting discussion like this. Before we get into everything, I'd like to remind anyone that wishes to participate that this is a discussion not a flame war, shouting match, or gladiator duel. If you disagree with someone, say so in a calm and reasonable manner, stating why you think s/he is wrong and why you think you are right.
Moving on, what do you think about U.S. forces torturing prisoners in the middle east? Do you think it's wrong, justified, a necessary evil, what and why?
In my opinion; I don't really care who is being tortured. It's just wrong.
Just because you torture someone doesn't mean you're going to get any information. Since you're talking about the prisoners in the middle east; it's even harder to get information. The people there are either innocent, or extremists. In both cases, you're not going to get a lot of information. There is also a possibility that the person in custody really doesn't know anything. If they say that they don't know, you're just going to assume that they are lying and hurt them even more. What's the point of that? What if they don't know anything? Are you really going to risk ripping someone's soul apart based on your whims?
If the person being tortured is an extremist, then you'll know that they aren't likely to give you any information. They are willing to die for their beliefs. In any case, if someone tortures them to a certain limit; they might give up some information. But the problem with that is that you're not going to be certain that the information you have just received is correct. When someone is put under extreme pain, they will give out information just to stop the pain. But how can you be sure the information given is correct? And when it's not correct, what are you going to do? Torture the person some more?
Torturing someone is a sick, twisted thing to do. To me, it's morally wrong and shouldn't be done on any living creature.
The worst thing is; US forces can take you away and start torturing you for no reason. They don't need evidence that you did something.
I agree wholeheartedly Endless; not only is torture immoral, it's unreliable and in-efficient. Any information you might get out of them is, at best, questionable (As you said, under extreme circumstances, a man will say anything, true or not). And beyond that, it's simply wrong, on every moral basis that makes sense. What is this whole "war" about if all we're going to do is lower ourselves to their level? Yes, most middle-east dictatorships torture; U.S. soldiers undoubtedly. But the only thing we (Barely) can have in any war, is the moral high-ground. Without it, whats the point?
I'm guessing that the above people are deontologists (means justifies the end)? Personally, I think torture is wrong, but it should be used when the situation calls for it (i.e. nuclear bomb to explode in New York or whatever). Even though the situation may be highly unlikely, torture shouldn't be used unless it is 100% that the guy has information.
can i just say: you cant bring morality into this and use it as an argument against torture.
You CAN say i believe that torture is morally wrong but you CANT say torture is wrong because it is immoral.
Morality and the very notion of 'right' and 'wrong' is highly subjective. In iran its not immoral to torture someone to death for certain crimes but many westerners would consider that immoral.
Does the US have the right to overstep its own moral boundaries in the name of world peace and security? no, i dont think so, i find that highly immoral.
Should we judge everyone else in the world by our own standards? i dont think so either.
Should we intervene in other societies and communities in order to being them round to our own way of life which is more "fair and moral"? I have no idea.
although many people will argue that the US army may have the right to use torture on certain individuals to save more american lives i still dont really know whether anyone can out and out condemn something which they dont actually have that much knowledge about.
Would it be immoral if we didnt know about it? well yeah, but we wouldnt complain about it as much.
Honestly i cant come up with an answer to that question, but what i do think is wrong is the wests age old policy of saying one thing and doing something totally different.
we preach peace and security and yet sow death and violence. we are no better morally than communist china.
ts completely wrong. We need to get our asses out of there now. We're doing more wrong than good now. We took care of Saddam. Now Iraq needs to stabilize itself. Us being their is just making the insurgency worse.
*bare with me, I don't know too much about this topic, so I'm just gonna throw in my 2 cents for the sake of the other side this debate, the side that agrees with the torture*
I agree with the U.S on this one because I mean, In order for there to be peace, there must be war. Now, the U.S is doing everything it can do to obtain peace and No one ever said war would be easy, nor did they say it would be pretty or painless. The U.S is doing all they can to make sure that they can lay this whole terrorism business to rest, and make sure we don't have another 9/11.
Debate: Torture in Iraq
