Torture

[FA_Q2]

Unfortunately for this argument, torture has been shown to be one of the least effective means of extracting valuable data from a subject. Further, you are most certainly not protecting your loved ones by giving the government the ability to torture those that it feels it ‘needs’ to. Rather, you are putting them in GRAVE danger of living under a runaway government. IT has absolutely nothing to do with moral high ground. It has everything to do with how much you are willing to trust some random governmental official with an insane amount of power over your life.

Your counter-argument has merits, and I appreciate your insight. In truth I'm a bit skeptical about torture being one of the least effective means of extracting valuable data. Torture, from my perspective, would seem effective. Snap my hands in half and break my knees while eyeing my ribs, and you'll likely meet success in gathering accurate information. Then again, I have little knowledge or studies relating to torture and its effectiveness.

There is a certain danger in giving the government the power to torture those it thinks it needs to. If they have the ability to torture them, who can say they won't start considering others? By giving a powerful government these privileges, it can take a foot for the inch you give it. Maybe some of these latest scandals in the Obama administration add weight to that point of view.

Honestly, your last sentence is both damning and accurate. I certainly don't trust politicians and bureaucrats, and am uncomfortable already with the kinds of power they already possess.

As McCain stated, everyone talks. I have no delusions that torture would not be effective in getting people to talk but the problem, AFAIK, with torture is that you are going to talk no matter what and will say anything to make it stop. In that light, how do you sift out the lies and the truth? Some references:
Interrogational torture: Effective or purely sadistic?

information gleaned from interrogational torture is very likely to be unreliable

Exclusive: Senate probe finds little evidence of effective torture | Reuters

A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats is expected to find there is little evidence the harsh "enhanced interrogation techniques" the CIA used on high-value prisoners produced counter-terrorism breakthroughs.

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

Although torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist because
it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a
sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows
a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation
room (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009). As one scholar put it, “Even though torture is
not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological
appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis”

For the most part, I have seen little proof that the ‘enhanced’ interrogations actually produced any real results yet the negative impacts are readily visible. I have a strong doubt that we have been able to get any information that was useful outside of a deluge or inaccurate information or outright lies. There are very few actual experts that condone or defend the practice either. The only people that are trumpeting this as effective seem to be the CIA who have a vested interest in that outcome.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

TASERs are usually a non-lethal device but the do sometims cause death. Still, I agree that they are a good alternative to deadly force. (even if the police don't usually hit what they intend)

I absolutely agree that tasers are a good alternative for law enforcement. I also have them in my homes and cars.

That doesn't mean they cannot or have not been used to torture.