Who agrees with me that torture should be used with terrorists that admit crime/genocide?

Sorry, but I can't agree. Under no circumstances should torture be used. - If the person in question is a trained militant, chances are they will lie, misdirect, or delay response, resulting in no gain.

If they are not trained, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear to escape the pain. Essentially, torture is ineffective. - Joining the ranks of states willing to torture reduces our standing in the world.

Think of the nations - past and present - that you equate with the willingness to torture. Retaining the moral high ground is more difficult, but is where the U.S. Has placed itself in the world historically: a nation where the rule of of law and human rights dominate. - Torturing endangers our troops and/or citizens should they be captured.It's much easier to rationalize cruelty against someone who would theoretically torture you if the positions were reversed.

It will also, inevitably, be used on someone unjustly convicted. - Torture increases the recruiting efforts and number of your enemies. A person who has been tortured is reasonably going to hold some life-long resentment, as will his family and friends.

They are walking testament to the barbarism of the torturer. - Torture damages the person commiting it. The 'evildoer' has to be dehumanized for a rational person to inflict damage - best case scenario.

If a person was willing to inflict pain or damage to anyone, well, how willing would you be to sit on the bus next to him/her? Have your kid go over to their house to play? The phrase I grew up with was "Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished for a crime he did not commit.

Back in the 40's there was a HUGE war, the whole world was involved it killed millions upon millions. The survivors of that war looked at each other and were like "sh*t, that sucked, I think I would rather live in peace, lets draft some rules so the we don't go through that again" flickr.com/photos/33749589@N07/3197228223/ In a nutshell, rules were established by our grand and greatfathers to ensure we don't have to go through the same hell as they did. This applied for everybody in the world no matter what religion, race or ethnicity everybody gets the same rules when it comes to war.

One of the things our fathers eliminated from war to ensure the human race moves forward in peace.... was Torture. When you think of "The good guys" and "the bad guys" remember, the "bad guys" are the ones who torture and think up reasons to justify it.

We should never torture anyone because that behavior is what breeds terrorism. Those who have been labeled as "evil doers" believe that they are right and honorable. They believe that those whom they are harming deserve to be harmed.

When we behave in the same way (even as individuals) we are demonstrating that what is believed about us is true and worthy of of that same treatment.

Obviously I am not going to win this one, but I can't really not say that I think this is wrong. Torturing is simply not ethical. More than that though, is this: torturing is not effective.

When someone is being tortured, the main thing they want is to end the torture, and the best way to do that is to tell the torturer what it is he wants to hear. Also, torturing someone for prolonged amounts of time could break their mind, which would be a terrible thing to do to anyone, and would make them totally unable to render any useful information to anyone.

The reason you wouldn't want to torture is because people will say anything under such duress. Put yourself in his shoes: if you were being tortured, would you not say anything to get out of your current predicament? I believe justice should be served, but let's be a little more humane than tit-for-tat.

What do you think?

We should never lose our values to punish those who's values are less than ours. We will be no better than them at that point.

To put this in a different perspective, let's consider the Old Testament in the Bible. In the Old Testament, there is a lot of writing about laws and codes for society to live by. Many of the laws called for retribution to those who wronged someone.

If you hurt someone, your punishment was to be hurt in the same way. One example given is of poking out your neighbor's eye and getting yours poked out in return. This does seem fair on the face of it, but it's really quite immature.

If you had a brother or sister you understand how this works. When you're young and your brother hits you, you hit him back. As you get older, you gradually learn that even if you weren't the one who started it, all hitting him back does is leave you both bruised and in trouble with your parents.

What some kids eventually realize is that it works out much better for you if you can frame him as the aggressor, so he gets in trouble and you don't. Sometimes people don't get to this understanding, and remain stuck in the more primitive "eye for an eye" stage of moral development. All the major spiritual leaders since Old Testament times have spoken out against the "eye for an eye" legal system.

Jesus preached compassion for your fellow man, and Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Just as modern Christian people no longer live their lives according to the Old Testament, modern laws have progressed beyond "you hurt me so I'll hurt you back. " I have faith that humanity can as a whole progress beyond this primitive level of moral understanding.

There are many many examples of those who have taken the higher ground, the only thing left is for everyone to get tired of hurting and being hurt, and take a new direction.

Since you suggest that torture should be used on "terrorists that admit crime/genocide" it seems that you are suggesting using torture as a means of punishment. That goes directly against the Constitution of the United States that says: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " (1) When our founding fathers debated this amendment at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, they clearly stated that it meant punishment free from torture.(2) So, by inflicting torture as punishment to anyone is strictly un-American.

If we lose sight of the principles that this country was founded on, then we are no better then the terrorist themselves. In fact, in some ways we are worse as we are willing to sacrifice our own beliefs for revenge.

We as Americans are supposed to be above all that. I think that when we start acting like them, we become them.

Here's the downfall of torture: While it might work for Jack Bauer, it's highly unreliable. The reason confessions gained under duress by police are inadmissible in court is because in the past, cops would threaten and pummel suspects into confessing to crimes just to get cases solved. It isn't justice.

Another thing is this: If it's okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us bin Ladin, is it okay to torture enemy combatants if they can get us, say, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about notorious bank robbers like Bonnie and Clyde? If you drag in the accomplice of a man who robbed the Kwik-E-Mart, is it okay to torture him to prevent future Kwik-E-Marts from being put in danger?

Torture is a bad practice. It validates your enemies' views of you, which strengthens their resolve. It costs you the moral high ground in conflicts.It almost guarantees that the men and women of your armed forces who are captured will be tortured, whether they have useful information or not.

It costs you allies who are appalled by the way you would treat other human beings, even the ones who kill you. And this doesn't mention the effect that torture can have on the torturer. I know I hate Osama bin Ladin a lot for what he's done.

But I also know I wouldn't want to torture him.

A lot of good points have been made, however I don't think anyone has mentioned one of the primary reasons we (or at lease we used to) treat prisoners humanely. In any war that is not absolutely one of mutual annihilation, there will be prisoners on both sides, and there will be peace later. Torture lowers the bar on how our soldiers will be treated when captured.

Sure, not everyone lives up to the Geneva convention, but the closer we hold, the more other powers will at least pretend to uphold it. The more we ignore it, the more danger our own servicemen will be placed in when captured. Also, torture does not produce reliable information, does not deter fanatics, and tends to produce more enemies.So it's something that obviously works against America and those who serve it.

Which makes it unpatriotic.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is actually a paraphrase of Edmund Burke. This statement is wrong. The truth is that good people will always do good things, because it's their nature.

Bad people will always do bad things, because it's their nature. T's the rest of us that count. We who are not so good and not so bad have to determine when we must stand up against evil, and when we must not be blinded by the light of goodness.To keep us and our families safe we chose men and woman who can work in the gray and in the twilight.

Sometimes they do things that we would be ashamed to see in the light of day. But this is what (very occasionally we hope) must be done so that civilization survives. Remember, the Western Roman Empire did not dissolve while it was pagan.

It dissolved after it became Christian.

I disagree for one reason only. People lie. If they say they were responsible for 9/11, it doesn't mean that they were.

Plenty of groups tried to take responsibility for plenty of different terrorist attacks and it doesn't mean they were. So in the end, you might torture them into recanting their story. For example, Saddam Hussein lied that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Over and over again until everyone had believed him. If someone elsewhere in the world had been hit by a WMD and he took responsibility, do you really think we should torture him? I'm all for torture most of the time, so this answer is fairly rhetorical, but I can't say that you should do it just because they've admitted to a crime.

Alternatively, our enemies would torture us in a heartbeat. You could say, we don't want to stoop to their level. But frankly, they'll behead you.

They'll defecate on your remains. So if I had someone in custody that could offer me information, I would do absolutely whatever I had to do including torture them without even thinking about it.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.