Addicted2Movies wrote:Yes they should be able to torture them if one of them has information to save people from a large scale terrorist attack (a la 9/11). If you are being held captive by the government as a suspected terrorist you have probably made some pretty poor if not malicious decisions to get into that situation. Torture is one of those decisions that no one wants to make and should never be considered as "moral". But just because it is an immoral act doesn't mean it is not necessary in extreme circumstances. It is akin to picking the "lesser of two evils". Either you torture 100 suspected terrorists with perhaps 99 of them not having the intel but 1 having information that could prevent this mass act of terror or you choose the "moral" route and abstain from torture at the expense of an impending terrorist that could take the lives of thousands of innocent people. I'm sure this will be an unpopular answer but I felt I'd voice my opinion as the devil's advocate.
I think most people, in general, especially here in the United States agree with you, I know I used to. But I don't believe you can promote a bad act in order to prevent another bad act that may or may not happen. It's the same thing as attacking a country before they attack you. It's just wrong. What if you were a citizen in Iran right now, an average every day person like you are here, and the United States decides to drop some bombs on your country in an attempt to prevent you from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Let's say those bombs that are dropped kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. What did Iran do to invoke such a response from the United States? Developing a nuclear weapon? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they are sponsors of terrorism and yet we are not threatening to attack them. The same can be said for half a dozen other countries. In order to prevent war we must start war, is a dangerous mentality and it applies to torture as well.
I don't trust my government. They lied to us about Pat Tillman dying by friendly fire by stating it was radical jihadists. The Pentagon Papers showed that our government lied to us for decades about their involvement in Vietnam. I could go on and on. Not to mention the empirical evidence suggests that torture does not give good information, instead, the prisoner gives faulty information so that the torturing will stop. Even McCain, one of the few Republicans against torture, spoke out against torture. Why? Because he was tortured himself as a soldier.