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!