Who are THEY?
The first flaw that I see in the pro-torture argument is that, in order to be able to justify it, you'd need conclusive proof that the respective person is an actual terrorist with serious intentions.
Legal systems all over the world haven't become so complex and thorough randomly. They have this format in order to make sure that people are convicted based on indisputable proof, as judged by unbiased people. Any system that shortcuts this will end up punishing a lot of innocent people.
The other big flaw has been beaten to death - people lie. Since you can't easily verify a confession, the torture will stop once the witness confesses something, no matter if it's true or not.
And the last one is that terrorists just don't have awesome info. They maybe know some other terrorists who they could give away, but that's pretty much the most info that you can get out of them. You won't find locations of terrorist bases, because terrorists are paranoid and move around. You won't find the location of a ticking bomb, because that's very short term info and the bomb will blow up before the guy has the chance to confess.
So, what this process achieves, overall, is to torture lots of innocent people and a few guilty people, in order to find out the names of a lot of other innocent people and of a few other guilty people that should be tortured.
I really don't think it's worth it.
(Am I taking the thread to seriously?)
#6715625, By marilena George Bush admits and condones Torture
marilena 8,198 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 10 years ago