I was just thinking. Now, as a country we're against turture because "we're better than them." We're not like that.

But let me give you too hypotheticals.

Let's say you have a seven year old daughter. G-d forbid a man kidnaps her and buries her in a whole somewhere. You capture him but don't know where she's buried. The daughter has two more hours of air left. What are you willing to do to the man, how far are you willing to go, to find out where the girl is?

Second hypothetical. You know a bomb will explode in New York City in an hour, killing hundreds. You capture the man responsible. What are you willing to do to the man, how far are you willing to go, to find out where the bomb is?

just a thought. I find that most people (in my experience) are against torture, right up until I bring up these two examples.

that torture is not a reliable method for getting information. How do you really know that the stuff a guy is screaming is true? It could very easily be diversion if the guy has a further purpose or if the guy is a pawn and was given false information. Torture had people screaming that they were witches who kissed the devil and cast wicked spells. How reliable is a method that can lead to that kind of crap? All it has a strong probability of doing is dehumanizing the torturer.
The good interrogators use manipulation, confusion, fatigue, and disorientation to ease out little slips. Some jackasses consider that to be torture too. But I feel torture has more to do with pain and threats. Maybe they do need to define what exactly it is sometime.

I dont deny that torture is not the most reliable form. But still, under these conditions, it couldnt hurt to try and see what we can get out of the guy. I mean, in such situations, what else are we supposed to do?

When time is critical, such as in your examples, one might be forgiven for using somewhat extreme measures. That doesn't make it right, or even necessarily effective. But you might have some justification in a case like that.

It bears noting, however, that such time-constrained scenarios almost never occur in the real world. Time can be a factor, but you're usually talking days or weeks, not hours or minutes.

__________________
Man up.

Very good response, raytri, I commend you. Then again, this kind of thing must happen in Iraq quite often. Or at least, it can be considered as uncommon.

All I'm saying is that if you accept my two examples as OK situations in which to use torture (and they DO happen on occasion) then we're effectively saying that torture is ok and is completely legal when we really need it. And at first glance, I think most people would be horrified by such statements, right up until the point they think of such as examples.

It's far more cruel than effective. What would be acceptable torture? Blinding? Rat cage? Iron boots? Molten silver?

One of our fundamental rights in democracy, is the right not to be subjected to torture. The West does hold a moral highground, allowing torture would undermine it.

If I were a terrorist and my bomb were going off in an hour, I would lie my ass off until it exploded. Your torture would get you nowhere.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

I strongly doubt it. We don't catch terrorists between the time they plant the bomb and the time they detonate it; we either catch them afterward (unless they blew themselves up) or we catch them in raids on bomb-making facilities. The Hollywood "we have one hour to find the bomb" scenario almost never happens.

Not really. For one thing, you have to be dang near certain that the person you're torturing knows the answer to the question you're seeking. Torturing 14 innocent people before you get to the guilty one is just not acceptable regardless of the stakes.

For another, you have to address the general ineffectiveness of torture in eliciting useful and truthful responses.

For a third, the circumstances in which torture might conceivably be acceptable are extreme, last-resort circumstances that almost never occur. We should not generally allow torture just so we're covered in those once-in-a-decade scenarios.

I think we should make it clear we do not tolerate torture, and then address those extreme circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

The fact remains that we as a nation cannot condone torture if we wish to retain the moral high ground. Such a stance comes at a cost, but that is the price of having principles. And IMO, the stance solves far more problems than it causes.

__________________
Man up.

insofar as it's being used on my ex-husband.

I am dead against torture and mistreatment for the reasons Raytri cited, but I can see SOME use for both.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.