Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on a person in order to compel an action from the victim. Reasons for torture include punishment, intelligence gathering and coercion. In 1948, after World War II, the United Nations outlawed torture when it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Opponents of torture argue that the government should never practice torture since it is inhumane and illegal under international law. Proponents argue that the military should not be prevented from using torture if they believe it will keep the country safe.
Enhanced interrogation should be allowed as well as psychological interrogation. These terrorists perform extreme atrocities on anyone, including innocent civilians. Our enhanced interrogation is child's play compared to what they do. This question should really be answered by someone under the threat of terrorism, or who has family of friends in captivity or otherwise affected by a terrorist act. You can pretty much guess what the answer will be 99.9% of the time.
I'm with Sam Harris. Torture should be strictly banned. In world-ending-nuclear-threat situations where torture seems the only path, the ethics of preventing mass death should outweigh the immorality of breaking the law and an individual's human rights. So... it should basically never be allowed.
We are the only country in the world that worries about being politically correct. If you go to any other country illegally and get caught, you will see horrible conditions, and not get any fair treatment. If you are believed to be a terrorist or spy in another country water boarding would be at the bottom of their lists. Other countries do much more horrible things like electrocution tactics, etc.. Yes torture is cruel, but how cruel is the planning of mass murder in the name of a religion. When you deal with animals that think a man, woman or child don't have the right to live because they don't believe in their ideology, well in my opinion the gloves need to come off.
No. There should be a "bright line" between allowed interrogations techniques and anything that amounts to a war crime or crime against humanity. However, there may be discrete circumstances where there is a critical need to obtain life-saving intelligence, in which instance it is the theater commander and his/her staff's call if there is a need for crueler interrogation practices. If such actions are subsequently authorized, then the burden of accountability must fall on those who authorized such "extra-judicial" actions. If the solution saves lives and/or ends a threat, the issue of accountability may be rendered moot; if it fails OR it is learned subsequently that the threat, and thereby the enhanced interrogation measure was overstated, those involved must stand to answer for their crime.
You can't expect to win or survive if the playing fields have different levels & rules!! Simply put ! If you let it be known that you will only bring a knife to a Gunfight ---you remove fear & caution on the Enemies side!!!
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.