Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i don't know why do you always come back and ask the same question over and over.
I have made myself VERY clear, I do NOT support torturing INNOCENT civilians, I don't even support torturing suspects. You are right, Most of the detainees are not terrorists, and torturing them is both morally and legally wrong.
However, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a well known mastermind of 911. Torturing him to get information is justified and morally obligated.
But it is unconstitutional.
And I wouldn't say it's morally justified. Allowing torture for the sake of being best overall is a very utilitarian idea, and I really don't want a utilitarian government. That's what allowed Internment camps in the 1940s, a blatant disregard to human rights. It seemed like a necessary precaution but it showed the governments absolute disregard for humanity. Torture is no different. A terrorists is still a human being, even if he/she is void of morals. We can't also abandon morals to fight them and still retain a moral high ground.
All human are to be treated with respect, granted basic rights, and never be treated as a mere means. Torturing someone is treating them only as an object with information. Even if the prisoner is an immoral actor, it is still immoral for us to treat them in ways we would not treat another person.
The only issue with this is that they're rarely after a confession. You're absolutely right if it's a confession they want, but they usually just want more information.
Don't mistake me for being in favor of torture; I think it's wrong regardless, but this is unfortunately only valuable some of the time. With that said, if I were being torture and was asked to reveal the location of ISIS's leader, I'd make something up to stop the torture (we can assume 'I don't know anything' won't get me out of it).
But, if lying just to get the interrogation to stop were going to get you an even worse interrogation the next time, you'd be more likely to tell the truth.
And I wouldn't say it's morally justified. Allowing torture for the sake of being best overall is a very utilitarian idea, and I really don't want a utilitarian government. That's what allowed Internment camps in the 1940s, a blatant disregard to human rights. It seemed like a necessary precaution but it showed the governments absolute disregard for humanity. Torture is no different. A terrorists is still a human being, even if he/she is void of morals. We can't also abandon morals to fight them and still retain a moral high ground.
All human are to be treated with respect, granted basic rights, and never be treated as a mere means. Torturing someone is treating them only as an object with information. Even if the prisoner is an immoral actor, it is still immoral for us to treat them in ways we would not treat another person.
Like I said, I don't disagree with you.
THE points I am trying to make are the following,
a. To say EIT never worked is intellectual dishonesty.
b. we are living in a world which is not 100% black or white. War is a dirty business.
Beating isn't a form of torture. Torture is a situation where something is demanded from the person being tortured, and the torture will stop when the person being tortured supplies that demand. While beating may sometimes be a means of torture, it is not torture in and of itself. It wasn't torture in this case. In this case the beating was revenge.
So, is revenge sometimes warranted? Is it OK to beat a child molester if he admits to it?
Does the guy who bombed the Boston marathon deserve to be beaten as revenge for what he did?
And I wouldn't say it's morally justified. Allowing torture for the sake of being best overall is a very utilitarian idea, and I really don't want a utilitarian government. That's what allowed Internment camps in the 1940s, a blatant disregard to human rights. It seemed like a necessary precaution but it showed the governments absolute disregard for humanity. Torture is no different. A terrorists is still a human being, even if he/she is void of morals. We can't also abandon morals to fight them and still retain a moral high ground.
All human are to be treated with respect, granted basic rights, and never be treated as a mere means. Torturing someone is treating them only as an object with information. Even if the prisoner is an immoral actor, it is still immoral for us to treat them in ways we would not treat another person.
Wow....
You're saying terrorists who cut off innocent people's heads, shoot children and burn woman alive deserve to be treated with respect?
Is that what you're saying?
Please clarify because I really want to make sure I'm clear on your stance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.