Torture vs Security

[Wiseacre]

We have an ongoing debate about using waterboarding and EIT in this country, which some consider to be torture. Some on the left do not support these techniques under any circumstances, but the problem is that by eliminating these tools you could possibly not get certain information that could lead to prevention of a terrorist attack. You could discount the probability that EIT could work, but even if the possibility is slight, should we not use evry avenue available to us, including EIT?

So, the question is, for those who would not allow EIT at all, are you willing to accept the security risk? We would never know whether or not EIT would have saved lives if an event occurs and it comes to light that a prisoner had information that might have led to prevention of the attack. But that would seem to me an acceptable chance to take. What say you?

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is some question as to whether EIT is in fact torture, but I'll ask you the same question I asked Clayton_Jones: Do you think several hundred or even thousands of American lives are enough reason to torture somebody? Suppose it's your family that gets killed, you're still okay with no torture even if it's possible their lives might have been saved? Cuz I'm not.

 

[TheBrain]

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is a third, and better, option. Do it, but don't get caught doing it.

That's the coward's way.

I disagree. Do I think it should be used as a matter of course? No. But if we have someone who we credibly believe has information that can potentially save thousands of lives. Then yes, I want some spooky guy in an off the books base doing whatever it takes to wring the information out of the bastard.

I'm sure that one day I'll have to answer to God for my supporting whatever methods it took to get Bin Laden, but I think He will understand.

 

[Ravi]

We have an ongoing debate about using waterboarding and EIT in this country, which some consider to be torture. Some on the left do not support these techniques under any circumstances, but the problem is that by eliminating these tools you could possibly not get certain information that could lead to prevention of a terrorist attack. You could discount the probability that EIT could work, but even if the possibility is slight, should we not use evry avenue available to us, including EIT?

So, the question is, for those who would not allow EIT at all, are you willing to accept the security risk? We would never know whether or not EIT would have saved lives if an event occurs and it comes to light that a prisoner had information that might have led to prevention of the attack. But that would seem to me an acceptable chance to take. What say you?

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is some question as to whether EIT is in fact torture, but I'll ask you the same question I asked Clayton_Jones: Do you think several hundred or even thousands of American lives are enough reason to torture somebody? Suppose it's your family that gets killed, you're still okay with no torture even if it's possible their lives might have been saved? Cuz I'm not.

If I thought torturing someone would save innocent lives, I would more than likely do it. And then I would "man" up and take my medicine without complaint.

 

[Wiseacre]

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is some question as to whether EIT is in fact torture, but I'll ask you the same question I asked Clayton_Jones: Do you think several hundred or even thousands of American lives are enough reason to torture somebody? Suppose it's your family that gets killed, you're still okay with no torture even if it's possible their lives might have been saved? Cuz I'm not.

If I thought torturing someone would save innocent lives, I would more than likely do it. And then I would "man" up and take my medicine without complaint.

So would I, but no 'more than likely' about it. No need to answer, but I wonder what your criteria would be for when you'd do it and when you wouldn't. For me, I'd have to be convinced the threat is real and the individual knows something useful to prevent it.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...erboarding-and-or-other-forms-of-torture.html

 

[Wiseacre]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...erboarding-and-or-other-forms-of-torture.html

Wow JB, that's a heck of a post. Thanks for the rerun, pretty much says what I think too.