This is an issue I'm having much conflict about. The reason is because I can partially agree with both sides of the argument. Torture is a very hard issue to balance for me personally because it is a long look at the fine line of what is ethical and what is not. One conclusion I can come up with is that torture is morally wrong but the costs sometimes outweighs the means. The question you have to ask yourself is; Are you willing to sacrifice your morals to protect the innocent? How far is too far?I am an American citizen and I love my country. I also like to think that my country should always be a moral beacon of light. Always trying to maintain our moral high-ground to the rest of the world. The question is how do you combat an enemy that is pure evil. They are willing to kill innocent people for their cause and give their own life for their cause. Can moral methods really prevail over such hatred and evil? Do we have to fight fire with fire? In the history of the United States we have yet to face an enemy such as this.
When we torture we sacrifice everything we stand for. We also become hypocritical. The Japanese water boarded U.S. troops during World War II. Those who committed those acts were charged for war crimes and executed. So why is the U.S. immune to the same laws that it executes? How does torture make us look to the rest of the world when we are supposed to be the great society of freedom and liberty? When we torture we give up our moral standing, our image, and our laws. There must be other methods of getting information from people without breaking the law. I think we are more than enough technologically advanced to do so. We are sinking to the level of our enemies to defeat them which is exactly what they want. We have to keep our heads and anger intact to prevent terrorist attacks not let our emotions and passions blind us.
Now for those who think torture should be done. Take this issue down to a personal level. I like to use this example; If you knew a loved one would die and someone had information of when and how. Would you use any method possible to save that loved one even if it resorted to something morally wrong. I would suggest to watch the movie "Taken." In the movie the father has a very small window of opportunity to save his daughter from her kidnappers. He killed, tortured, and put morals in the backseat to do so. Saving his daughters life was more important to him than his sense of good. I would have to say that I would do the same thing in that situation. Now if a terrorist had information about bombing a certain location that would kill thousands of innocent people. Are those lives worth sacrificing everything we stand against?
My final conclusion on the subject is a compromise. We research and discover other methods of interrogation. Methods that are far superior to torture without breaking the law. Without rule of law there is chaos. Torture is a doomsday scenario if all other methods fail and there is no other choices that present themselves. Saving innocent lives is more important to me. The only way we prevail in this fight is that we remain morally sound. When we remain the morally sound country our enemies morale will falter. Others will follow our example to help destroy these evil bastards.
On a side note, I know I've taken a very long break but I'm back in action now. More to come.
Posts
similar to the WWII war trials where Donitz's charges of not rescuing survivors of u-boat sinkings being dropped because the americans did the same thing.
ReplyDeleteTo me it really boils down to two simple questions: Is torture a guarantee that we will save lives, and can those lives be saved by no other means than torture?
ReplyDeleteOnly in the circumstance that both of those things are true, should torture even be considered.
Because these two questions can never really be answered with absolute certainty, there is always the potential that we will have tortured for no reason at all, and that is something that will NEVER sit well with me.
It's the ultimate ethical dilemma.
ReplyDeleteWe need to use any method that is available if it will save lives bottom line. 9-11 sould have changed our outlook on this subject and we need to take all actions needed.
ReplyDeleteNonsense.
ReplyDeleteThere is no controversy anymore. We tortured people. We used torture in search of information linking Iraq to 9/11. We gave people to countries that used torture. And what did we get?
One "confession."
While we invaded Iraq, two men were being tortured for the same kind of link. Together, they were waterboarded hundreds of times. Neither of them gave us any actionable intelligence.
Meanwhile, the Bushies ordered harsh treatment of prisoners. By this time, we were holding prisoners of war -- many of them just swept up in ridiculous mass arrests.
The results speak for themselves. They have become iconic images, each of which can speak a thousand words.
We got nothing. Absolutely nothing of value. But we sure did reap the whirlwind!
"My final conclusion on the subject is a compromise. We research and discover other methods of interrogation. Methods that are far superior to torture without breaking the law. Without rule of law there is chaos. Torture is a doomsday scenario if all other methods fail and there is no other choices that present themselves. Saving innocent lives is more important to me. The only way we prevail in this fight is that we remain morally sound. When we remain the morally sound country our enemies morale will falter. Others will follow our example to help destroy these evil bastards."
ReplyDeleteWe already have those methods. Those methods were shoved aside by the creative geniuses who brought you "heckuva job-Brownie." So now that we've gotten past the idea that an "issue" exists, let's talk about what should have happened after 9/11.