I doubt I could look a family in the eye and tell them that instead of doing everything I could to save their loved one from a terrorist attack, I took the moral high ground. I’m sure I would sleep easier knowing I tortured a vile piece of human garbage in order to save an innocent person than I could by not doing it. I would need to be certain the ends would be justified.
I don’t have answers to your questions, and your final point is a good one.
Edited
No easy answers, that much is true.
It’s not easy to change the rules of the game…but like any modern game, this one has outgrown the book. Therefore to survive, we must also change.
But I will admit that is simply my own opinion…compelling arguments can be made for both sides.
It’s always easier to enact the Marquess of Queensberry Rules when it’s not your family or foxhole mate getting blown the fuck up.
Once people start understanding that they are NOT PLAYING BY OUR RULES…then things might change. They take advantage of our generosity and sense of fair play to blow innocents the hell up.
Moral high ground aside, does torture more often than not produce actionable intelligence? Why do something if it isn’t effective?
if the person is a skilled interrogator,under certain circumstances torture can be effective
how ever it has been show time and time again some people will tell you want you want to know, even if it is not the truth “make shit up” to get the torture to stop
Exactly. People will say whatever it is they think you want to hear to make it stop. If you start peeling Abdul’s face off, he may make up a story just to get you to stop. He may not even know anything. Even if he does, how do you know the information is reliable?
Wasn’t there a committee recently that concluded there was no real intelligence gained from torture that saved any lives or stopped an attack?
Also, police stopped using oppressive interogation techniques because it produces false confessions in addition to all that human rights jazz.
but you catch possible " fighter" put uniform on him make him walk point
ied, sniper, ambush, you might see something in his behavior or lack of movement
point guy gets it first
How many in here support the government torturing terror suspects to gather intelligence, but oppose the hacking of an iPhone for the same purposes?
problem with both issues is where do you stop.
where will the line be drawn.
Feed them to sharks and film it through a Pay Per View. Give the proceeds to the families of the victims of their respective attacks.
I support both in a way…if the government has a warrant from a judge, let them hack the phone themselves…do NOT REQUIRE the phones maker to give you the key…that is the difference.
If a person is captured trying to blow themselves and innocent people the fuck up (say for instance in a crowded airport in Europe), anything is on the table for me to extract information from that suicidal asshole.
He made his choice when he tried to blow up innocent people, for a one way trip to his version of paradise.
I would hope not as my moral objections rise above and beyond a secular objection, and transcend beyond a temporal material existence.
Now, if I were to fail in my convictions then laws prohibitive to torture should be applied to me. I should understand why they must.
“Torture is a tool of the US,” I hope no one ever says.
I hope to be brave enough to not abandon the highest principles as soon as they’re tested. Yet, if I do, I hope I’m brave enough to accept the consequences, understanding why they must exist.
We can always come up with scenarios to do as we wish (or have others do it on our behalf). Be it my family not having healthcare (so now I support single-payer), extending this discussion to gang-member because of the demonstrated danger they pose to their neighborhoods, and so on.
I do not want the US of A to begin practicing torture in my name or my family’s.