Just read a dreadful description of Waterboarding WaterBoarding

Information that is acquired by torture. Reading up on the subject there were several forms that were deemed acceptable one of them being waterboarding.
To me it is disgusting and demeaning as an American to contemplate debasing ourselves by wilfully commiting torture.
but for some,

How can you verify it is authentic and not just what you want to hear?

Should we as Americans ever morally and ethically justify such actions? Even if it saves lives is it worth our honor?

If you answered yes, does that mean enemies of the U.S are then justified to do the same?

How can you verify it is authentic and not just what you want to hear?

You cant. Plus people that get positive I.D as a terrorist could just plan for capture and torture anyways, and come up with larger group based plans to fool such an attempt, or break its back with disinformation or worse, like attacking a wedding or something under the guise it was a terrorist rally or something.

Should we as Americans ever morally and ethically justify such actions? Even if it saves lives is it worth our honor?

Personally if an actual terrorist is captured, I don’t really find it objectionable to see torture applied to them, even if it was for no purpose. To me though that’s the problem, I mean what’s a terrorist in Iraq, same thing as an insurgent? What about Hezbollah compared to Al Queada, any difference there? I don’t think we really know enough to combat terrorism truly at this point, save shots in the dark. Its the only reason I would object overall to torture, simply because a real definition of the enemy is lacking, if you kill the support for such in the culture you would kill them in a way I don’t think bombs can currently bring, save nukes/genocide or something like that. The war in terror in my opinion needs to be fought with intelligence and special operations forces, combined with diplomacy and economics.

If you answered yes, does that mean enemies of the U.S are then justified to do the same?

I don’t think they really care, there was no justification for 9-11, or a great many things they do, different world view. So to me a need to adapt to the threat exists, but more times or not I think we simply play into there hands overall, such as blowing a building of civilians up to get a terrorist or two, now there is a real moral tragedy.

How can you verify it is authentic and not just what you want to hear?

This has always been the argument against torture, namely that the victim will give information to stop the pain and that this information is likely to be unreliable. In answer to this, I suggest that there are two goals to torture, the gaining of authentic information, and the gaining of a confession. Someone who is skilled at torture should be able to extract independantly verifible information from a victim and know the difference between legetimate information and nonsense information. As for the second goal of garnering a confession, I would think that choosing the first option elimates that as a problem. The key to extracting information is to make sure that it is more than just a single source go by their word type of situation. There should be external information sources that can aid in verifing the truth of information gained. Also the professional and competent torturer should know going in what type and quality of information the victim may have available to him.

Should we as Americans ever morally and ethically justify such actions? Even if it saves lives is it worth our honor?

A much more difficult question than the first one. We as Americans should never morally or ethically justify torture. To do so lowers us as a nation and a people. Torture is an ugly thing that is never moral or ethical. But sometimes it may prove necessary. Along with many of the other ugly tools available to human beings. It's filthy and reprehensible, but at times we must choose to do filthy, reprehensible things in order to survive. Honor is useless if there's nothing left to honor.

If you answered yes, does that mean enemies of the U.S are then justified to do the same?

As I stated before, it's never justifiable, but seeing as they do so anyway, justified or not, it's a factor. The idea is for torture to never become a justifiable choice, and as such to lesson its use by anyone.

You can never verify that the information that you gain by torture is authentic. And that is one of the problems with that act. People can lie just as easily under torture as they would anywhere else. You would have to have some sort of idea of what kind of information the person would have, who he is in the ranks of the enemy, and what questions to ask to test his stories.

As for morally and ethically justifying these actions that is difficult question that not only questions someone morals but their very humanity. However it comes down to the fact that we are facing right now an enemy that does not care for human life and will try every way possible to eliminate us. We are facing an enemy that does not wear a uniform and looks like an ordinary civilian that can walk right up to you and you would never know.It also comes down to the question of do you care more about your honor or the lives of the people around you? There is no way to give a simple yes or no but if it could save thousands, maybe even millions of lives then I believe that torture is sometimes unavoidable.

Torture is never justified but we are the only ones that even follow the Geneva Convention which condems torture. Just because we do not perform the act does not mean that it going to stop anyone else from performing. Torture will not stop in other countries because we happen to show some restraint.

1.) There is no real way to determine anything in this world without physical evidence. To say something under the influence of torture is to take a step off a cliff and only later do those responsible attempt to insert solid ground for them to fall... metaphorically speaking.

2.) Well, Americans and morals don't really go together given the 'secular' nature of Constitution. I don't think ethics come into play so much as law and common defense. There are those who would say yes and those who would say no, both have perfectly valid arguments and perhaps even entire bodies of evidence to support their claim but I am not qualified to issue a blanket statement unless I sit down and research every case where any form of torture has been considered.

3.) Well, Israel uses waterboarding in addition to sleep depravation all the time. The United Kingdom doesn't really have a Constitution (but I won't speak for the British). But to actually answer the question: Yes. If America is using methods considered acts of torture, our enemies get to play the same defense. There is no double standard where international politics are concerned... well, in an ideal world.

Macura


To me, this sounds like a total contradiction. You start off by saying torture should never be justified by Americans... then half way in... you justify torture by saying it is "sometimes... necessary". Well, doing a vile thing out of necessity is a justification for doing the vile act.

How can you verify it is authentic and not just what you want to hear?

I am surprised to see so many people say you can't.... because, you can. If you torture a man to find a cache of weapons.... you can verify whether it is there and sometimes if it was there. Look, people haven't tortured for centuries cause it doesn't work.... I willing to bet, it does work. He/She may tell you 100 lies... and one truth... but eventually if he/she is made to feel hopeless enough... they will crack, especially if they lack training to endure torture.

Should we as Americans ever morally and ethically justify such actions? Even if it saves lives is it worth our honor?

That is a question that is very hard to debate. How can an American mother who's child is captured condemn torture if it will possibly, however small, give her child a chance to come home. Should I condemn her for being in favor of torture, know if I was in her predicament I would feel the same. I condemn torture, but then again, I have no reason to justify it. All human have the capacity to justify, and at times they have the capacity to justify the most cruelest of acts.

(one might ask why conservatives tend to justify vile act at a greater degree than liberals... or am I the only one that sees such a trend)


If you answered yes, does that mean enemies of the U.S are then justified to do the same?

Hmmmm.... trying to throw the hypocrite card out on the slide.... It matters not....

Gordo


Ahhh.. . but there was.... I know because they justified it. I've heard the justifications... as I am sure you have. But justification is a personal choice... and so is accepting justifications.

To answer your question... I think the truthful answer would be no... by most Americans,... here is why.

If one agrees it is alright to torture, who is American, it is likely that person believes so out of love for America and other Americans. They believe it is necessary Now a person who love America to the extent that they justify something they know to be vile... is unlikely to ever see America or Americans in such a negative light to allow that Americans are ever deserving of such a vile act of torture.

Ahhh.. . but there was.... I know because they justified it. I've heard the justifications... as I am sure you have. But justification is a personal choice... and so is accepting justifications.

To answer your question... I think the truthful answer would be no... by most Americans,... here is why.

If one agrees it is alright to torture, who is American, it is likely that person believes so out of love for America and other Americans. They believe it is necessary Now a person who love America to the extent that they justify something they know to be vile... is unlikely to ever see America or Americans in such a negative light to allow that Americans are ever deserving of such a vile act of torture.

Quoted from droop224.

I realize this, but in all reality the methods they employee does not harbor any form of acceptance into anything close to civilized warfare, if I can even say something like civilized warfare On that note though, do you think a terrorist would only use a "dirty bomb" against a military target? I think that they are conscious human beings and Osama has been quoted as saying they will not differentiate from civilian/military in relation there goals. SO with that, I don’t see any reason we should try to put ourselves on some moral high ground over the issue of torture, I will not agree with it being used arbitrarily on any person that could possibly be a terrorist, but in that lies the reason why I wont agree with it, there is no way to decided who is who in that area. They could grab some shop keeper and torture him because a stash of weapons was found in his shop, he may have been doing that out of fear or some other form of intimidation, but of course there is no real way to verify that, so that’s why I do not agree with torture overall, simply because its a sticky issue that can easily turn against us in a variety of ways. Now say a high ranking known terrorist is captured, i am all for it, don’t really care, that person to me cast off his rights as a person when he or she decided to enter the current world platform as a terrorist. If I was overseas and thought for a second I would be captured, i would go out fighting, or if I could not do that I would pull a pin on a nade and hold it until they got close to me I would not go out in some video being decapitated over some form of ignorance. They have already let us know where there standards happen to be.

jus‧ti‧fy –verb (used with object)
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right:

No contradiction. Torture is never a right act, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work, nor is it a reason for it never being done. Sometimes a nation must do a wrong in order to do a greater right. The queston then becomes if the ends are worth the means. If the torture of one can prevent the deaths of many which is the greater wrong? To torture, or to allow the many to die? Is it worth not doing so because to do so is a wrong act?

Reports abound that the "Liquid Bombers" were done in by torture of a ring leader by the Pakistanis and his spilling his guts under torture. That episode alone shows that torture can reveal facts. That one incident comes close to the proverbial "ticking bomb" scenario that one usually hears about this time in these debates, but differs in that it probably did happen. Now, who among us would argue in the face of the saving of thousands of lives in that one plot that such methods are not justified?

I offer a new social axiom: The more dire the threat; the less squeamish the measures against the threat.

As modern threats against us reach full maturity of mass murder capabilities and resolution by known enemies to employ them, do not be shocked that the old paradigms are abandoned out of necessity. Ask this question, had we the opportunity would you argue we should not have tortured the plans from a captured 9/11 plotter prior to the date dispite your queasiness?

You are still contradicting yourself... or at least to me it seems so.

Answer your own question and I will proceed:

"If the torture of one can prevent the deaths of many which is the greater wrong? To torture, or to allow the many to die?"

Now, ask yourself is it right to choose what you feel the lesser wrong??

In answer to my own question, I'd have to say it depends on the situation, and the people involved. As for it being right to choose the lesser wrong. No. Doing the wrong thing for a good reason doesn't turn the wrong thing suddenly right. But that doesn't mean it should never be done. People ofttimes do wrong knowing it's wrong, that's when they justify that the reasons for doing so make it ok. My contention is that torture is unjustifiable and thus never ok, it is always a wrong act. But sometimes even wrong acts are necessary.

Sarcasm: torture has proven very effective at discovering the direst threats to our society, such as witchcraft and heresy.

Reality: The ends of saving people from 9/11 do not justify the means of torture. Government sponsored torture is as bad as mass murder, and has no place in a repbulican government. There is no liberty if we resort to torture to protect life, liberty and property. We do not need torture. In fact, if we were less eager to torture 'suspected' terrorists, people would probably be less likely to sign up to fly planes into our skyscrapers.

For an account of how governments that use torture really work, see The Secret History, by Procopius. Procopius was the court historian of the Emperor Justinian (the first Byzantine/last Roman Emperor). Justinian and the Empress Theodora used torture to stop barbarians and revolutionaries alike.

O.k.... since it depends...


Given the right "situation"... and the right "people involved" would you find it to be a correct action, due to necessity, to use torture.

To your last statement.... If a wrong act is necessary, should it be done?? And if it is done should the person(s) responsible be punished by the rest of society.... Should people who torture for the "greater good" of society be deplored or applauded??

How can you verify it is authentic and not just what you want to hear?
Cross checking with info from others is the most effective way.

Should we as Americans ever morally and ethically justify such actions? Even if it saves lives is it worth our honor?
IMO aggressive interrogation is justified to save American lives and especially so against an enemy that murders civilian men women and children and tortures and mutilates our soldiers. I am not sure if water-boarding is torture and I don’t think we need to routinely torture all captives.

If you answered yes, does that mean enemies of the U.S are then justified to do the same?
You mean the “enemies” that are doing far worse now? No ‘enemy” we have ever had in a war has refrained form torture. Do we have the illusion that because we follow the GC or any other code of conduct that our enemies will do the same? It hasn’t happened yet in all of our history.