Torture - Morality Meets Reality
Would You Torture a Terrorist to Protect Your Loved Ones?
I don't want to be tortured and in fact, I don't want to torture any human being or any other creature on earth. I believe it is immoral, unethical and debases society as well as the person that is conducting the torture. Sometimes I feel guilty if I trap and kill one of the field mice that enter our house, despite my best attempts to prohibit their entry.
Now come on the scene of humanity terrorists that seek to kill masses of innocents in order to promote their ideology. The 9-11 attack, the train bombing in Madrid and numerous other suicide bombings throughout the world aimed strictly at civilians for their psychological and political impact do cause the fear, terror and slaughter that is intended. We all recognize that terrorists would use nuclear bombs, chemical attacks and any of an assortment of other devices to cause mass casualties among dense populations.
If you captured a terrorist and knew with a high degree of certainty that his associates intended to imminently kill your children or family - was unwilling to reveal the plan or the time and had avowed that it was his purpose to destroy you - would you torture him in an attempt to prevent that plan from being carried out? If you knew that 9-11 was being planned and captured a terrorist who you believed could reveal the plan but was unwilling - would you torture him to discover the plot and prevent the slaughter? If a captured terrorist knew that a suicide bomber was enroute to kill, would you torture him to reveal the destination? Would I lose some of my humanity if I said I would?
In a nation of laws and openness the potential application of torture against other human beings presents a moral dilemma of immense proportions. Semantics is being used to justify torture. "Coercive interrogation techniques" are the words that would describe "water boarding" (a technique that gives the sensation of drowning to an individual) which is currently being debated by congressional and legal officials. Probably semantics needs to be used so that the US government can maintain that our country does not use torture while still possessing the authority to use "coercive interrogation techniques" should the need arise.
The practical reality is that we expect our government to protect us. Torture or "coercive interrogation techniques" must have some sort of controls, responsibilities need to be defined and legal ramifications determined to insure that it is not used indiscriminately or without justification. Nevertheless it is a tool that needs to be available if necessary to protect innocents from harm.
One could argue on many moral, ethical and even pragmatic grounds against the use of torture. However, the exigencies of the moment may require its' application and I for one want all options on the table for those that would protect our nation and our citizens.
If those in power want to refer to it as "coercive interrogation techniques", that is fine with me. Just do what is necessary to preserve the safety and security of our nation.
Published by Clark Richards
Clark Richards is a retired soldier, business owner and teacher that has traveled extensively throughout Europe, South America, Asia and Australia. View profile
- Reality TV and the C-list CelebrityReality TV just won't die. Most of the members of the Screen Actors Guild hate reality TV because it costs them jobs, so is it any wonder then, that now there is the disturbing trend of celebrity reality TV shows?
- Desperate Times Call for Desperate Reality ShowsSo desperate are we for our required dose of reality television after the finales of big name shows, we are choosing to fill our time this week watching paltry offerings.
- Reality TV Show Idea: HumiliationThis reality game show attempts to humiliate the players at every opportunity. The winner is the one who can stay in the game the longest and deal with the humiliation the show provides.
- The Benefits of Reality TV Outweigh the CostsThe overwhelming majority of critics view reality TV as a poison so lethal to TV and the public that it is destroying TV. However, it is reality TV that serves many beneficial purposes to not only the public, but ama...
- Reality TV Show Idea: Stalk the PaparraziI want to see the paparazzi being stalked as if they were celebrities. Now they can be! Reality shows make any ordinary person a celebrity, so why not paparrazi? I think even Oprah might list her in her favorite thing...
- John McCain: a Vote to Allow Water Boarding Torture Despite Previously Condemnin...
- Water Boarding
- Where is the Reality in Shows like Survivor, American Idol, and Fear Factor?
- Starting Over: They Say Reality TV Has Never Been so Real
- Reality TV Show Idea: The Life of a Homeschooler
- Reality TV: Some of the Best Reality Shows
- America's Love Affair with Reality Television
2 Comments
Post a CommentThe problem with your 'if' scenario is that it's highly improbable. As far as I know, there has been no such case in the history of US torture. The more realistic scenario is less certain.
So, if you knew someone who might or might not be a terrorist or who might or might not know a terrorist and might or might not know about a potential terrorist attack that might or might not happen in the near or distant future, would you torture them? If you had a prison full of people with little to no clear evidence that any of them were guilty or potentially threatening, would you torture numerous innocent people in hope that at least one of them might actually have useful information and might actually tell the truth?
Furthermore, since information gained through torture is unreliable and mixed with mostly false information, how do you determine what is true? How do you weight the merits of going against everything you and your country stands for to attempt to gain unreliable informat
Fantastic article! I wish our politicians were as reasonable, and articulate as you are. I know, I know if wishes were nickles....