Should Terrorists Be Tortured?

I know this will be a very controversial post but here goes.


Apparently most or all of the convicted or captured terrorists aren't talking. Yet it is absolutely vital that the free world gain information about remaining terrorist leaders and operatives worldwide. The potential threats posed by these well-financed and organized fanatics cannot be overestimated. They are scattered over the entire world in secret terrorist "cells," waiting only for the order to attack.


Should the information-gathering process be accelerated by torture/interrogation of known or convicted terrorists? Let us realize that information is by far the most important part of preventing future terrorist attacks such as the tragedies of 9/11/01. Identification of terrorist "sleepers" in our own and other countries, by captured terrorists, would enable the FBI and INS to take a closer look at individuals they may not even know exist.


Certainly the idea of torturing terrorists is contrary to what we view as an enlightened society and turns the stomach as well. However, so does the thought of another 9/11 incident, mass biological warfare or a strike on one of our nuclear power plants which could be like another Chernobyl disaster. Not to mention the very real possibility of a true nuclear bomb being smuggled into the country (probably by bribing drug smugglers to carry it in with their loads), and later detonated in one of our largest cities.


I'm not sure what to think about this idea. On one hand I would be quite afraid of abuses, and it would have a psychologically brutalizing effect on society. If however it were used only on convicted terrorists then perhaps the information gained would greatly aid in bringing down the worldwide terrorist rings or help prevent another great tragedy such as 9/11.


The war we are now fighting against terrorism may turn out to be every bit as important as World War II. Many of today's terrorists are committed to bringing down the free world through any and all means necessary. It's not just the Palestinian problem or the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia that they are against. They are against freedom, democracy, and the entire way of life of the Western, non-Islamic world, and they intend to destroy it and us by any means they can find.


So I am uncertain, but I don't think torture/interrogation of terrorists should necessarily be ruled out without being considered. The information gained might well stop the next 9/11 disater, or worse. On the other hand, strict safeguards would have to be in place to prevent abuses. Perhaps the public could never "swallow" this, and the only way would be through covert military operations--it is known that such techniques have been used by the military of many countries around the world in the past.


So while I am still unsure, I don't think sparing the pain of a few terrorists is nearly as important as preventing the next 9/11. My biggest fears about allowing such things would be the potential for abuses, and the potential harms to our civil rights which might never recover.

certainly those that have not been convicted have the same rights as us even if people dont like the idea. they have the right and should of course use that right not to talk without advice from their attorney. if the govt. wants info from them it can get it by granting immunity. thats how our system works, and it does.

those that have been convicted have the same rights but can be offered incentives to talk. if they dont thats the rub of the green.

what the cia does behind closed doors is another thing. we close our eyes to and concone when in in our best so called interests.

Yes, that's how it works in our country, but what about in the overseas war? What if the CIA instead of the Army or the Rangers manages to capture or kidnap a few terrorists. What happens then? I'm not sure I really want to know, but the more I reflect on it, the more it seems that the unimaginable worst for those few guys might also be the best for the rest of the world.


What a world. Not just in the negative sense but in the sense that almost anything is possible.

Absolutely. We should also round up their mother's and children and put them in the next room if necessary.


This is not some crime we're trying to solve. This is war. America ought to be ready to do what it takes to win. If you think they wouldn't use similar procedures, you're kidding yourself.

I agree with your last sentence. The rest is B.S. These aren't drug dealers we're dealing with. They are people who have committed an act of war against the United States of America.


Granting immunity? Tell me you're kidding.

This post highlights the problem of mixing military and criminal justice problems. I don't like to hear the President or A.G talking about bringing terrorists to justice. No. Crush them, destroy them utterly, use military force. You don't try to bring Bin Laden back for trial. But we can't do that to people we try for crimes, even when those crimes involve terrorism. We chose to have trials for the guys who did the '93 WTC bombing. That was our way to deal with it. Now those people are absolutely entitled to be treated like any prisoner. So no, they can't be tortured. To treat them otherwise will destroy our system of justice. If it is obvious that a trial is only a show trial, we will justifiably lose all confidence in our system. That will eventually end our system. That is a high price to pay and will mean a victory for terrorists. What they want is to destroy our country. If they destroy our justice system, they are well on their way to doing just that.


Now, if you want to change our system to deny the protections of our justice system to terrorists, that is another matter. There are ways we can probably do that. I don't think we should give foreign terrorists the benefit of our Bill of Rights. They don't like America's way of life, okay, don't ask for a trial if we come knocking on your door in Khartoum or Beirut. People living here who help terrorists present a tougher problem though.


Our criminal justice system is not designed to fight terrorism. So we shouldn't think it will help anything in this situation.

M,


It was a widely held belief that Tim Mcveigh had collaborators. Mcveigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Would it have been such a crime against humanity if instead of a lethal injection they "mistakenly" injected him with truth serum? Let him talk a little ask him a few questions then let him die.

"If you think they wouldn't use similar procedures, you're kidding yourself."


Which is what makes our way of life worth fighting for and theirs so disgusting. If we lowered ourselves to their level, then I wouldn't care who wins.

"Which is what makes our way of life worth fighting for and theirs so disgusting. If we lowered ourselves to their level, then I wouldn't care who wins."


Spoken like someone who obviously never saw a day of combat in his life and probably never even served in his country's own military.


Do you even know what WAR is? Do you have any idea what those before you had to endure in previous wars so your soft lilly ass can enjoy the "way of life" that's so precious to you now? War is hell, friend. Even in peace time we're engaged in covert ops that you wouldn't want to know about. But they help keep your "way of life" going even if you are oblivous to the necessary evils of the world.


You keep treating the enemy like their a bunch of bicycle thieves and that precious "way of life" of yours may gone forever. But hey... At least we didn't lower ourselves to their level. Give me a break!

Aren't torture-induced confessions notoriously unreliable? I think most people will just start sayign anything and everything they think their torturers want to hear to make them stop.


On another note, I think the real philisophical question, is do we want to prevent future attacks on the society with the values we have now or on a society that tortures people?


We could always just let the Israelis have them for a bit since they don't have any problem with torturing susspects.


Paul Talbot

Well, I'm undecided on this whole issue but I don't think we should be trying to force confessions in any case. I was thinking more along the lines of possibly forcing them to provide their list of contacts, associates and bosses--and where these people could be found...and perhaps trying to get at information regarding future plots. Naturally, captured lieutenants or leaders would be more valuable for these purposes than mere rank-and-file terrorists.


I agree there are serious philosophical and ethical/moral considerations which weigh against the use of such techniques. I am merely questioning whether war and self-defense might be creating conditions where the end actually would justify the means in with regards to this issue.

How do you know whether or not I saw combat or served in the military? Because I'm against torture? What difference would it make if I saw combat or not? Are only those who were in combat or the military entitled to be citizens and have opinions? Can only chickens recognize eggs?


The United States has never treated its enemies like "bicycle thieves." and I don't think President Bush and Secrretary Rumsfeld are doing it now.


Should we take some planes and fly them into our enemies' buildings? How should we torture them? Branding irons in their eyes? Chop of their children's fingers one at a time while we force them to watch?


Give me a break and try to remember what it is we're fighting for.

They should be forced to reveal their financial holdings. Collaborators in the USA should be jailed for 20 to life. This includes internet poker players, and the owners of these companies should get life without parole.

"How do you know whether or not I saw combat or served in the military? Because I'm against torture?"


I regretted this comment as soon as I wrote it. I left it in because I believe it to be true. Not having military or combat experience doesn't mean you are not entitled to an opinion, but it does mean that you're opinion is unlikely to be helpful when it comes to such matters.


"The United States has never treated its enemies like "bicycle thieves." and I don't think President Bush and Secrretary Rumsfeld are doing it now."


But you are suggesting that we treat them as criminals, right? Strictly above board. Make sure their civil liberties are protected, are treated in a humane manner, blah, blah, blah. I won't speak for love, but anything is fair in war. You do what's necessary for survival. Sometimes it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, but you do what you must to make sure the objective or best outcome is met. How humane would it have been to shoot down and kill innocent passengers not even knowing if there were children aboard the hijacked flight which went down in Pittsburgh? What about their families, etc. But you should be glad someone in the chain of command had the backbone to issue such an order, even if you yourself could not have.


"How should we torture them? Branding irons in their eyes? Chop of their children's fingers one at a time while we force them to watch?"


Answering this question only furthers your cause to cry over a lack of decency, but whatever needs to be done to reduce our own collateral damages while benefitting us in the war, should be done.

I fail to see how my having had combat experience would make it more or less likely that my comments on whether or not we should torture people would be helpful.


If we resorted to the same tactics of our enemies, i.e., flying airplanes into buildings, then it wouldn't matter to me if we won the war or lost it. I wouldn't care if we won because we would have lost our moral claim to be better people than they are. It would simply be two monsters fighting each other, and the world would be better off if both sides lost.

"I wouldn't care if we won because we would have lost our moral claim to be better people than they are." ~SNIP~ "It would simply be two monsters fighting each other, and the world would be better off if both sides lost."


Andy-


What would you call a people who dropped two seperate atomic bombs on members of their own human race?


I don't mean to belittle you, but do think that when a U.S. fighter pilot drops his bomb or presses the button that launches a hellfire missile that people just die cleanly? BOOM! Their dead? It's all over? This is what I meant by combat experience. People get blown in half, while still alive. These people are fathers and husbands to someone. When our bombs miss (as will happen), a father might have to watch his child writhe in pain because shrapnel just tore through the kid's eyes. Oh, wait a sec... You're humane.. You're not a monster.. You don't want any part of the stuff that ACTUALLY goes on down there at ground zero, do you? But I'll bet you'll close your eyes and accept it because you know it's for the good of our country. What if it prevents further incidents of the terrible suffering which you witnessed of our own American Citizens on September 11? Then is it Ok? Or do you think that maybe we should just bow out now? Not be the monsters they are and let them wipe out about another 30,000 or so Americans because Andy Fox didn't care if we won?

Torture by hand, or torture from 30,000 feet . . . very interesting point.


I guess an argument could be made that we are torturing people right now for information and cooperation. Talk or see your kids die, give up bin laden or watch your wife get her head blown off. Yes, I agree we already are torturing humans in every sense of the word.


Very good argument.

I have not denied that war is hell. Ugly hell. What I am saying is that there must be limits beyond which we should not go. Torture is beyond those limits. Dropping bombs is not the same thing as torture. Combat is not the same thing either.


As for the atom bombs dropped at the end of World War II, what is most remembered about that era are the Nazi concentration camps and the atomic bombs. We can argue the pros and cons of the necessity of dropping the bombs, but my answer to your question ["What would you call a people who dropped. . .?] is morally blinded.


To say that in war everything and anything is acceptable is not acceptable to me. Certainly there should be limits, even in wartime, beyond which we will not go, lest we become no better, or worse, than our enemies. That we have gone beyond those limits in the past (if indeed we have) is no reason to do so again. One can be against particular actions and policies and still not be a pacifist. I was and am in favor of striking back militarily at those responsible for the actions of September 11. Sometimes you have to fight. I am opposed to torturing people. I don't see these as contradictory.

What if by torturing a few (who were either privvy or party to the atrocities of September 11,), we save the lives of thousands of innocents from becoming their next target?


What if by torturing a few (who were either privvy or party to the atrocities of September 11,), we prevent the same torture endured by those faced with the decision of melting in a burning high rise or leaping 70 stories to certain death?


What if by torturing a few (who were either privvy or party to the atrocious acts of September 11,), we prevent any more American children attending day care from being buried beneath thousands of pounds of rubble?


What if by torturing a few (who were either privvy or party to the atrocious acts of September 11,), it brings an end to this war sooner saving thousands more and insuring victory?


And what if by NOT torturing these few, America actually loses this war, its freedom, its way of life and everything else which makes this the greatest nation on earth? At least you have the right to express your feelings. If the terrorists have their way, you won't have even this right.

What if we tortured the wrong people? What if we tortured people who didn't know the answers to the questions we were asking? What if, to save themselves, those tortured gave us erroneous information which caused many people to lose their lives? What if all those things you talk about happened because of the torture, instead of being prevented by the torture?

I think a lot of this depends on the form of torture. In one definition it is not uncommon for police officers to "tune-up" someone they've arrested to give up information on his cohorts. Is a smack across the head torture? Is a kick in the ass torture? Is slamming him up against a wall torture?


You say you wouldn't care who won if our side tortured for info. Ask Abner Louima who he's rooting for.


I think reasonable people have to measure the stakes against the tactics. As I said above we're already torturing the Taliban to coerce them to give up bin laden. Does it matter if it's from 3 feet or 3,000?

I guess what's buggin' me is that Andy doesn't seem to realize what's at stake here. He focuses on a few while an entire nation is at risk. Like the pilot of an out of control airplane fixating on what's wrong with the landing gear.


Heck, I'd submit to my own death and/or torture if I thought it could save our country. To the soldier in combat, this risk is his job.


I'm sorry I even started this long debate. It can't be won. Guys like that don't want to understand we are at war. To them it's just something to be read in the news or watched on TV. The fact that there are people out there who want to destroy America and kill us all isn't yet real. If he or his family should ever have the nightmare of meeting this enemy face to face or finding them at his own door step, maybe his tune would change. I for one, don't want to wait that long. I don't have anything against Andy. He sounds like a real nice guy. I'm just be thankful that people like him are not in charge of defending our country.

I think our difference here is that you are saying this is all-out war and there should be no limits on what we do. If torture is required, then torture should be used. (Please correct me if I am wrong here.) I say there should be limits to what we do


You brought up the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in an earlier post. Why don't we use nuclear weapons now? The Taliban has not accepted our President's demands and Bin Laden is still at large. Why don't we nuke them to compel their acceptance of our demands? Why stop at torture?


I understand we are at war and that our enemies want us destroyed. I am, of course, not in charge of defending our country, but I believe that what our leaders have done has been right on the money. I believe we need a sustained military, economic, and political war and that it should be prosecuted as long as it takes to win. I did not vote for Mr. Bush but I believe he has handled things magnificently. I do not believe he would condone torture as an instrument of national policy.


Those who would defend our nation while losing sight of our values and principles are not fit to lead us. I understand the horrible carnage of war; this does not mean, in my judgment, that those who prosecute war must necessarily be immoral. (In fact, one can make a case that refusal to fight this war would be immoral.) Your argument is that there is no such thing as morality in war. I respectfully disagree.