The Student Room Group

To those justifying the CIA's use of Torture!

Some people I have come across have been trying to justify the CIA's use of torture against suspected terrorists as a necessary prerequisite to obtaining intelligence.

Torture is a grossly inhumane act and doesn't usually result in reliable intelligence since the person undergoing said treatment is going to say whatever they can to make it stop.

More importantly, when a country such as the USA uses its so called 'democratic' status as a justification for raining 105mm rounds of freedom from the sky it becomes rather ironic when we find that it hasn't been upholding basic standards of human rights itself.

When we allow our governments to get away with conduct so grossly contrary to our civilised understandings of human rights we pave the way for a dangerous road where the state is given a carte blanche to do whatever the hell wants and justify it on the basis of 'terrorism'. This is all the more pressing in the current situation since a relatively large number of the 'suspects' tortured turned out to be wholly innocent.

A terrorist might not (and probably doesn't) deserve an adequately humane level of treatment, but once we start making exceptions we begin to undermine the very values we allege to be fighting to protect.
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
Some people I have come across have been trying to justify the CIA's use of torture against suspected terrorists as a necessary prerequisite to obtaining intelligence.

Torture is a grossly inhumane act and doesn't usually result in reliable intelligence since the person undergoing said treatment is going to say whatever they can to make it stop.

More importantly, when a country such as the USA uses its so called 'democratic' status as a justification for raining 105mm rounds of freedom from the sky it becomes rather ironic when we find that it hasn't been upholding basic standards of human rights itself.

When we allow our governments to get away with conduct so grossly contrary to our civilised understandings of human rights we pave the way for a dangerous road where the state is given a carte blanche to do whatever the hell wants and justify it on the basis of 'terrorism'. This is all the more pressing in the current situation since a relatively large number of the 'suspects' tortured turned out to be wholly innocent.

A terrorist might not (and probably doesn't) deserve an adequately humane level of treatment, but once we start making exceptions we begin to undermine the very values we allege to be fighting to protect.


Exactly. You can't declare war on a group of people because they're acting in a morally repugnant or inhumane manner and then give them that exact same treatment. As with most of the US' foreign policy, it's hypocritical and completely morally unjustifiable. The US is calling other people monsters whilst acting like the exact same monsters they're trying to fight.
Reply 2
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
To be honest, my objection is not a moral one, but simply a practical one: torture rarely works, it's not very reliable.

As for the US' actions: understandable, but still indefensible. Got to remember their background in all of this. Their country had never been directly attacked like that in their history. They were scared and they lashed out. Again, not for a moment saying they were right to do so, but you can definitely understand why they did.
Original post by Drewski
To be honest, my objection is not a moral one, but simply a practical one: torture rarely works, it's not very reliable.

As for the US' actions: understandable, but still indefensible. Got to remember their background in all of this. Their country had never been directly attacked like that in their history. They were scared and they lashed out. Again, not for a moment saying they were right to do so, but you can definitely understand why they did.


Lol it sounds sick but I do agree. It's not even that its morally wrong, it just doesn't work.
Reply 4
Avatar for Ggmu!
Ggmu!
Original post by Drewski
To be honest, my objection is not a moral one, but simply a practical one: torture rarely works, it's not very reliable.

As for the US' actions: understandable, but still indefensible. Got to remember their background in all of this. Their country had never been directly attacked like that in their history. They were scared and they lashed out. Again, not for a moment saying they were right to do so, but you can definitely understand why they did.


This.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ggmu!


Original post by Drewski
To be honest, my objection is not a moral one, but simply a practical one: torture rarely works, it's not very reliable.

As for the US' actions: understandable, but still indefensible. Got to remember their background in all of this. Their country had never been directly attacked like that in their history. They were scared and they lashed out. Again, not for a moment saying they were right to do so, but you can definitely understand why they did.


Lets not treat the US as too much of a victim shall we? I mean this a country that has been dabbling in the politics of other countries for a long time now and long before 9/11. It has been funding terrorist organisations in Latin America which have killed countless numbers of innocent civilians in order to maintain its political interests in the region. Not to mention the deaths of over 200 children in its so called 'war against terror' following 9/11 through drone attacks in civilian population.

America has created far more terrorists and than it has killed. By constantly 'accidentally' killing an innocent children, fathers who had previously been impartial to the conflict now grant credibility to the extremist ideology. Maybe America should rethink its foreign policy since its clearly not working.
if torturing a terrorist stops me or my family being blown up on a bus then so be it.
Original post by Drewski
To be honest, my objection is not a moral one, but simply a practical one: torture rarely works, it's not very reliable.

As for the US' actions: understandable, but still indefensible. Got to remember their background in all of this. Their country had never been directly attacked like that in their history. They were scared and they lashed out. Again, not for a moment saying they were right to do so, but you can definitely understand why they did.


What would an armchair pundit like you know ?
If torturing a terrorist results in information that saves innocent lives then I don't see what the problem is. Being nice and asking them to kindly help you out won't work.
If the suspect is 100%, without a doubt a terrorist or other do-gooder with a violent past and no remorse, AND is withholding information that can prevent the suffering or save the lives of other people, then I have no problem with torture. People who will go out of their way to ignore and violate the human rights of others automatically forfeit theirs imo, but there needs to be conclusive evidence that the accused is actually guilty. If all other options have failed then the wellbeing of one guilty person doesn't outweigh the wellbeing/lives of their innocent (potential) victims. Torture isn't pretty, and sure it isn't 100% effective but what is. That's just torture in general, everyone knows the US has a bad habit of sticking its fingers in everyone elses pie and complaining about the taste. But if the UK or France or somewhere else were as big, powerful, hated, and doing the same thing, would you still be saying anything?
Original post by Europe Crusader
What would an armchair pundit like you know ?


And what would an armchair pundit like you know the other way?

Don't make assumptions, you never know who's on the other end.
Original post by Drewski
And what would an armchair pundit like you know the other way?

Don't make assumptions, you never know who's on the other end.


I am not claiming to know anything. If the CIA are torturing terrorists then they must have good reason. so again what would an armchair pundit like you know about protecting national security using these methods ?
Original post by Europe Crusader
I am not claiming to know anything. If the CIA are torturing terrorists then they must have good reason. so again what would an armchair pundit like you know about protecting national security using these methods ?


And I agree with that. I said they had their reasons for doing what they did, and that, in their minds, they were justified for doing so.

I also know though, from people I trust, that torture is mistrusted in equal measures.
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible

Torture is a grossly inhumane act and doesn't usually result in reliable intelligence since the person undergoing said treatment is going to say whatever they can to make it stop.

Nonsense. Torture is a proven method that works in obtaining intelligence. If it didn't work they'd simply kill the person held, be done with them, and use their time in a more valuable manner. There are various methods of torture and some work better than others.
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
Some people I have come across have been trying to justify the CIA's use of torture against suspected terrorists as a necessary prerequisite to obtaining intelligence.

Torture is a grossly inhumane act and doesn't usually result in reliable intelligence since the person undergoing said treatment is going to say whatever they can to make it stop.

More importantly, when a country such as the USA uses its so called 'democratic' status as a justification for raining 105mm rounds of freedom from the sky it becomes rather ironic when we find that it hasn't been upholding basic standards of human rights itself.

When we allow our governments to get away with conduct so grossly contrary to our civilised understandings of human rights we pave the way for a dangerous road where the state is given a carte blanche to do whatever the hell wants and justify it on the basis of 'terrorism'. This is all the more pressing in the current situation since a relatively large number of the 'suspects' tortured turned out to be wholly innocent.

A terrorist might not (and probably doesn't) deserve an adequately humane level of treatment, but once we start making exceptions we begin to undermine the very values we allege to be fighting to protect.



Silly arrogant, smug, liberal armchair pundit who has no clue what they are talking about !!
Makes you want to question which group is the terrorist and which group is "defending itself"
Original post by ShotsFired-9941
Makes you want to question which group is the terrorist and which group is "defending itself"


yawn !
On one side I completely agree that torture is absolutely disgusting and shouldn't be allowed & used. On the flip side, if they're torturing some bloke who was planning on putting a nail bomb in a cinema (or some other heinous terrorist act) then they bloody well deserve it. That and the fact that people willing to do something so extreme are quite often fanatics that you wouldn't hear a peep out of unless equally extreme methods are used against them.

It's certainly a tough moral dilemma.
(edited 9 years ago)
i personally think they should be using this -

torture-rack-2-lg.jpg122.8KB
I have no problem with torture so long as it's for punishing people.

But if it's used to gather information I'm not, it doesn't work, and they'll you what you want to hear.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you