[LG]

:cop:

Originally Posted by LG

:cop:

How do you define "torture" LG? I cannot see an absolute answer in this without more context. If someone knew where a terrorist controlled nuclear weapon were to go off, then I would have to say that almost anything could be done to prevent this weapon from going off. But, if this were to find out something like troop movements in Iraq, then that is a different matter.

We certainly should not stoop to the level of those who routinely use the infliction of gross physical and mental pain to get information.

[efrahin]

Depends the kind of enemy you are dealing with. If they only want to see you dead no matter what: YES and 1M times YES

If it is your wife giving you mental torture: NO, that is their job.

[SteveZ]

There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged.

The definition of what is torture is quite broad. It is "physical" only, or does "psychological" fit into it as well? How much "physical" and/or "psychological" action constitutes torture? Where's the bright-line between pressure and torture?

Or is it like the old definition of pornography, which was, "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it." ? If that's the case, the definition is as subjective as the number of folks trying to make the definition.

All that being said - we would like to always say we as Americans take the moral high-ground in all of our actions. However, we must also remember that just because we "play by rules" doesn't mean others do or will. This "game" called counter-terrorism is deathly serious in determining who wins or loses, and the scoring gets mighty personal the closer to the playing field you find yourself.

Very few of us have ever been in situations where the horror of events personally surround you as much as warfare does, and guerilla warfare is the worst of all. It's easy to condemn the actions of folk who sift through the pieces of friends and live in constant stress of being next on the victim list, especially when the criticism occurs from thousands of miles away by folk sitting on a sofa and not on absolute guard during the next drive, or walk, or chance meeting on the street. It's easy to say "you should have done this" or "you shouldn't have done that" when you're not living though that hell. And saying "I can understand how you feel, but" doesn't cut it, because you don't understand unless you've experienced it.

Does the means justify the end? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. You just have to appreciate the situation and the fact that humans with all of their emotions are involved.

[efrahin]

SteveZ: very good definition. I am with you.

[stjade]

yes-especially when dealing with an enemy which has no regard for life

[zcaveman]

I think it depends on the circumstances.

First I have to agree with SteveZ. But then I have to think that there are times in extreme circumstances that you need to do everything possible to get any informantion that you can to prevent a major man-made disaster from occurring.

I know that the TV show "24" is a fake but if you do not think that something like that can occur and that if you have a limited time to get the necessary information to prevent the disaster that you have to do whatever is possible to get that information you are sadly mistaken.

[samhass]

Psychological...yes
physical..no.

IF WE TORTURE THE ENEMY AND THE INFORMATION WE GET SAVES LIVES I'M
ALL FOR IT AND IF YOU THINK OUR MILITARY DOESN'T TORTURE PEOPLE TO
GET INFORMATION YOUR IN LIVING LALA LAND

[golfnut]

every chance we get

[MMC24]

Absolutely, don't you think the innocent families of 9/11 victims are still being tortured today? Regrettably these terrorist's only understand extreme measures and if we can extract any information that would prevent further incidents than the means justify the ends.

[steve0528]

SteveZ,
One line says it all, "You don't understand unless you,ve experienced it" . Thank God that most have not, and pray to God that our children will not need to. Very eloquent and provocative. Thanks.

[hunt9791]

Yes..

[punkpup]

SteveZ you make some salient points.

Intellectually I am extremely conflicted regarding the subject of torture. I am a Quaker and we do not condone violence; physical and/or psychological.

I recognize that we as Americans are in constant danger from an enemy who hates us and has no regard for life including their own and will stop at nothing in the name of jihad. It does not change the fact that I think torture immoral and inhumane; sadly I cannot perceive an effective alternative. Our enemies are not people with whom we can sit and reasonably discuss a peaceful resolution.

God help us all.

[gemorc]

Shouldn't this poll be in the political forum? In the USA, today, this has become a political subject.