Should Terrorists Be Tortured?

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.