So You Say That You Are Against Torture?

It is easy to be against torture, it is cruel and inhumane, but we live in a cruel and inhumane world.

That is whyt I think that torture is necessary because the terrorist who kidnaps a child would probably put it in a coffin with little air and so if one does not torture the terrorist, that child will die. And normal questioning with the deprived sleep and bright light shining on their faces would not work in this case. I do think that those who are against torture NOT me of course, have no consideration of the families whose lives are ruined by the terrorist anyway.

Amen. Most of the people who are against "torture" (which it really isn't...give me ten minutes with the terrorist and you'll see torture) are idealists who have no idea how to extract information, or how to win a war. They use knee-jerk reactions to decide if they agree/disagree with certain political ideals. Politics should never be this intricately involved in warfare.

In what way is it? Just because it causes discomfort? Was permanent damage done? No. Was ANY damage done? No. Did Pelosi object when she was briefed prior to the events? No... In fact she asked if that was ALL they were going to do. Ever heard of SERE training? They are waterboarded as a normal part of their training. If we use techniques that are used on a regular basis during training, then how does that constitute torture? I say we should use whatever means necessary to extract necessary information from terrorists. If torture doesn't work, then why has it been used throughout history for information? Just because some fancified psychologist claims it doesn't work doesn't make his claim a fact. Why don't you tell the class how it IS torture... hmmm?

Waterboarding makes the subject suffer the symptoms and believe he is drowning. While it usually does not cause permanent damage, it can. Are you aware that the US has a history of labeling waterboarding a warcrime?

Exactly how is waterboarding NOT torture?

So you would let the child die?

I didnt say that. All Im saying is that the kidnapper could indeed give false information just to stop the torture for that moment.

Well you keep him in the torture chamber until the police go to the location he said and if they find the child the torture stops. If they call and say the child is not there.....well then the torture starts all over again.....and keep going until he tells where the child is.

Well what about using caterpillars if water boarding does not work?

Well apparently caterpillars are bad enough that they forced that one Club Gitmo detainee to tell the interrogators what he knew.

What is so bad about caterpillars? I was thinking if waterboarding did not work move on the electro shock or pulling out fingernails. I mean if there is a child involved than all the stops need to be pulled out.

Now that is common sense, you are against torture except you see a place for it.

"It's not as if they water boarded everyone at Gitmo, just the ones they thought had information." Actually that's not true. They only waterboarded the terrorists that they KNEW had information. The experts have made it clear that such techniques only work when you know the person has information and you know exactly what information you are trying to get from them. That is the system that interrogators used under Bush.

I do not see anything wrong with anything you have written.

Nice. You're not the first mother I've heard that felt that way about anyone threatening their child. It's a parent's job to keep their children safe.

I won't presume to know what's truly in the hearts and minds of people, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there aren't more answers like hustonphotography's simply because it's against an ideological stance. And since a hypothetical situation is something no one takes seriously until it happens, it's just too easy to answer with things like, "But there's a better way," and "I'd never torture." I'd "torture" you and you and you to find my dog, much less my kid. If you owed me money and didn't pay me back, you better put a life vest on, 'cause you're a-goin' in the water as sure as that water runs downhill. America does not lose it's moral high ground by kicking some a$$ when needed. You're only as safe as the world you're living in. Who's to play the protector if every police officer is replaced with a progressive ethics professor?

You do have some valid points, as do others... It is a tough one. I thought I was firmly on the side of no torture, but honestly I am not sure where I stand. I can see how there could be times where torture might be justified at the levels such as this.

Well that is only true when you have people who torture for the sake of torturing. In the case of waterboarding in the US, it was only used against two people, captured on the battlefield, who we KNEW had knowledge of future terrorist attacks. Obama's director of national security even admitted that the harsh interrogation worked. He said in order to be effective you need to know EXACTLY what information you need and you need to know the individual has it. When asked about al Quaeda's plans to attack LA, Khalid Sheik Muhammad laughed and said "you'll find out soon". The interrogators knew that he had knowledge on those attacks and knew that they needed the information ASAP since the attack could happen at any time. "Last week, the Obama administration's top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, privately told intelligence employees that "high value information" was obtained through the harsh interrogation techniques. However, on Tuesday, in a written statement, Blair said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/timeline-released-senate-shows-condoleezza-rice-okd-waterboarding/

Sorry this belongs above with my other responses.

Investigators use psychological methods to get people in question to talk and to know when people are lying. They make deals to lessen the blow of the inevitable. They also do extensive investigations through interviews and scientific evidence to locate missing persons. This is the logical and humane way to do things, especially when the suspect is not even proven to be guilty and no child is in sight. The only real reason why people use torture is because they are seeking revenge in some sort.

:-) One of my all-time favorite anti-war (America V Terror) lines was said my Bill Maher. "Well, don't you think they hate us more since we're over there? And shouldn't we just leave?" After I pulled myself off the floor from my belly-rolling laugh, I asked everyone I know this follow-up question. "How much more can they hate us? They kidnap and cut the heads off American citizens. They infiltrate our country on the good grace of the Statue of Liberty's mission statement just to fly planes into our buildings. They insist that we ALL deserve to die. I mean, you think it gets worse?" In my estimation, as small-minded as I am, I believe that the more we kill and catch, the less they'll be able to recruit. Eventually, a few of those little kids might start saying, "I don't wanna be a Jihad when I grow up. I actually want to live." But if they know we're soft and that the ideologue liberals won't let us fight them, they can get us a lot more easily, thus their numbers grow. This is a proven fact elsewhere, as the manaics, left unchecked by cowardly nations, continue to seize power and territory at will. But hey, what do I know?