Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
Indeed, that's the common argument against torture. However, it discounts a couple things:
First, some methods of "torture" are more effective than others. Fear has always worked more effectively than pain, for instance. That's due to the nature of fear.
Secondly, the argument that torture doesn't work fails heavily when one considers that, if it wasn't working, it wouldn't be used.
Regarding ethics, the argument fails when the question is asked: what is more unethical? To me, allowing a disaster to happen because of weak-kneed intel methods is far worse than scaring someone into telling what they know.
Let's say we capture a known terrorist ringleader. He isn't saying anything, but we know a plot is about to unfold. To me it is morally repugnant to NOT use so-called enhanced methods of interrogation in that case. In essense, we are forced into making a decision between to distasteful things ... yet you want to fault us for making the decision that benefits us.
|
What's much more likely is that torture becomes an everyday occurrence. And not just in use by the military but also all branches of the police force. Capture a suspect and he's not talking? Might as well slap him around, get an answer, any answer. Before you know it you have innocent people on the death row, can't imagine this type of thing happening? IMO these methods are just corrupting and no better to what the nazis used.
Also to go into this particular case, it seems that the whole point is that these guys don't necessarily have much info if indeed any. So by torturing them they become kind of martyrs.