Research study after research study comes to the same conclusion, torture doesn't produce reliable information. The person being tortured will simply tell the torturer whatever they want to hear in order to make the torture stop.

Why is it that when we see an captured American soldier, aid worker or diplomat appear on video tape denouncing their own country we all KNOW that the person was simply caving in to torture. But when we torture an enemy, what we get is genuine valuable intellegence? that proves one of two things, we are rather naive, or we are way better torturers than our enemies.

Now, thanks to my time with the Marines a few years back I can imagine the tactical situations where beating somebody's ass might provide intel that could save my life and that of Marines under my command, but I still can't support using torture under any circumstances. Other reviewers have said you can't get reliable intel through torture and its true. How do I know? I know because I would try to give bad intel to an enemy if those bastards tortured me or my Marines. They tell us to say nothing because in three days all our operational knowledge is stale anyways, but I like to screw with people, personally, so giving out a little bad info that gets my captors buddies shot up sounds like a good idea. If it sounds good to me I can imagine it sounds good to our enemies. I'm also a bit too much of a people person to torture people and my extensive history of insubordination tells me I would have NO PROBLEM not following such nasty orders if they were given to me.

I would never have thought that in the USA that this would become in item of discussion, but here it is. This should not be allowed.

I understand in that twilight world of spy and counterspy, it is a dog eat dog world and different rules apply. I have also done oral histories from World War II vets, and especially in the Pacific Theater, different rules sometimes floated to the surface. I suppose the same is true in insurgency vs. counter insurgency warfare. Exigency often trumps formal policy. That is the way it has been and probably always will be. You do what has to be done to save a life or achieve some immediately pressing need.

That being said, it should never be official policy for regular uniformed troops or for regular law enforcement personel. If possible, the officer or official should immediately resign. If resignation is not possible, then resistance and subversion are wholly justified.

What is UP with this country? I thought that this country stoof for liberty and justice for all. I thought that we had the moral high-road over terrorists who would behead people. Apparently I was wrong. The United States tortures people. Have we gone so mad trying to capture the terrorists responsible for 9/11 that we would go back on our own American values? If that's the case, then the terrorists have won. If Osama and his cronies realize that they have so scared us to cause this country to circumvent its own Constitution and values, then they have achieved their goal of terrorism. I'm not saying that anger directed at the terrorists is unjustified. We definitely do need to stop these extremists from destroying this country and the ever-unstable Middle East. But torturing people, circumventing the rights established in the Constitution (Patriot Act), and claiming that ALL Muslims are fanatics is counterproductive. It could even ruin our chances of fighting the terrorists altogether. You can't seem to get a straight answer from this administration concerning our stance on torture. Bush and his people seem more interested in splitting hairs than answering definitively a simple question: "do we or do we not torture?" I said this to political cartoonist Chuck Asay, and I will repeat it here: it doesn't really matter if we aren't torturing people. The mere appearance that this country condones torture is enough to tarnish and perhaps even ruin forever the image of this country as a "good guy" in this war against terrorists. It doesn't help that our idiot of a President has vowed to veto a forthcoming anti-torture bill. The most ironic thing about this entire ordeal is the fact that the same people who think that we should use torture and the unConstitutional parts of the Patriot Act are the same people who whine about 'nanny government'! People in foreign countries and our very own citizens are probably wondering: what does this veto mean? Does Bush believe in torture? Why does torture tarnish our good image? Because the United States is supposed to be the "good guy" who stands for freedom and justice. Not torture. I think that contrary to what some people might say, those that are unhappy with the direction in which this country is moving are justified in their worries. I want the United States to win in this "war against terror". But at what cost - our Constitutional liberties? Our good name as a country? There are ways to win wars. This isn't one of them. The American people seem to know this, which is why Bush is finally coming out in favor of McCain's anti-torture bill. It's about time.

Torture is a term used frequently today to indicate extreme, sometimes delusional, often incoherent hatred for George W. Bush. Do you really believe that no prisoner in US hands, over the past (pick a number) 50 years has not been "tortured" for information? Nobody? Grow up. The current discussion is being conducted by partisans lashing out at the current (Bush) Administration. It's funny how quick they are to congratulate the training and preparedness of "Clinton's Army" for their accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice how singularly they attribute Abu Graib's prisoner humiliation and torture to Bush, but accord no blame whatsoever to Bush's predecessor. Like someone snapped their fingers and suddenly the Army is full of torturers. Right. The world changed on 9/11/01, my friends. We are engaged in a fight to the death with a new kind of enemy, and the rules of engagement need to be reviewed. Re-analyzed. Re-vamped. It is responsible to have the discussion out in the open, even though partisan cheap shot artists can refuse to show any restraint in criticizing their political opponents. It's easy to condemn "torture" (however YOU define it) when you're not on the same street as the suicide bomber. As long as your brother isn't the one who was kidnapped. Acquiring critical information from captured opponents is nothing new to America during wartime. The openness of the discussion is new but it is caused by the overwhelming hatred of our president, on the part of a small number of american citizens, who happen to be liberal democrats.

If someone had asked me a couple of years ago if we as a nation would be debating whether it's OK to torture people, I wouldn't have believed it. In my, perhaps naive, worldview, there could be nothing farther from our national ideals than the use of torture. And at a pragmatic level, I believe that torture doesn't work. Why? Because somebody who is being tortured will say whatever the torturer wants to here to get them to stop. And don't even get me started on how our use of torture reflects on our "spread liberty" message. And at a time when the country is crying out for leadership on this issue, all we get from the Bush administration is doublespeak and Clinton-esque word games. "We don't torture." (but we have our own definition of torture that permits simulated drownings, mock executions, and physical duress up to organ failure). "We will adhere to the laws of the United States." (But we have opened secret detention centers in scary parts of the world with different laws than ours.) When Congress passes the McCain bill 92-8 seeking to codify our treatment of prisoners to meet the standards layed out by the Military's own guidelines, the administration's response is to threaten a veto (its first veto btw), and to send Cheney around to browbeat and try and weasel a compromise. Isn't this one of those things that we shouldn't compromise on? Plenty more rants on the subject can be read (!Link Url="http://www.rateitall.com/i-408116-use-of-torture-in-interrogations-of-pows.aspx" Name="here."!)

I can see no honor in the use of torture. Even on the stance of basic human rights that it is an immoral act, it is also an act that is often futile and counterproductive. Not only is it a despicably inhuman act, it degrades and humiliates the one inflicting the torture as well as on the one who is receiving it. What are the guarantees that the person who is being tortured will have any information of value to give or for that matter the information is even to be trusted. Unfortunately we do live in a world where evil exists, this evil has a different face than before, zealots who even under the most extreme methods of torture usually ending in their death, still would refuse to give up any pertinent information, and have proven they are prepared to die to protect it. It is the lowest form of barbarism.~~~~~UPDATE: On a personal level when involving my child the desire to beat the tar out of someone who had harmed my little one, would have me blazing with white hot anger to masticate them and spit them out! Usually though, if someone is holding a child hostage, they are not without the child or there is a partner who is watching the child and it would probably cost the life of my child to do anything at that time. Anyway, I do see your point; life can have many variables if you look for them. However, I concluded that since the topic was under Politics with a subheading under Policies and after reading over the other reviewers comment that this list was pertaining to the torture of prisoners of war or detainees being interrogated concerning involvement in terrorism. On that basis I stand behind my words should never be used.

If our leaders are thinking this way I am afraid, plain and simple.

This is simply a foolish and dangerous position. We live in a world where evil exists, where others threaten us and our way of life. Essential to winning wars is the attainment of intelligence from those we capture. If denying them certain basic comforts leads to us gaining information that ends violence or threats more quickly it is certainly morally permissible. These scenarios are not as has been said by numerous people black and white and considering that the option to inflict certain discomforts or pain upon detainees needs to be reserved in accordance with their knowledge and the threat that could be averted. There is no moral inconsistency here. There are simply competing moral principles at hand. We should never directly kill innocent human life. Some have even gone to question my pro-life stances in the context of the torture discussion. But if hi-jackers once again got control of a 747 and were flying at the Empire State Building with an impact time of 2 minutes- would it be morally permissible to shoot down the jet and the 300 passengers on board? Of course. The action taken did directly kill innocent human life but it was a secondary action to avert the great disaster that would have occurred had we not. These moral questions are difficult and we can all disagree on what levels of action we would take but to simply dismiss any level of torture in my opinion is foolish. ****Update, Helmut I may have sighed but I don't think you've been reading George Soros... well okay maybe...LOL Actually, level headed people can disagree on the levels or torture- what can and can't be accomplished, what means we should take to accomplish our goals. My point was to discuss this topic by pointing out there are competing principles at hand. My point about the 747 was not to equate it to torture but to dismiss the notion that under all circumstances it is immoral to intentially kill innocent life. The distinction lies in the first effect of the act and second effect, dismissing your assertion that that the ends would therefore justify the means in some Machiavellian standard of ethics. I do not believe that is so. If my direct goal is to bring down the jetliner to save innocent lives then the act is moral and just even if the second effect is killing innocent human life. All the things you said are true to some degree, but they all have degrees- and that is the essence of this discussion.

That's right. Torture should never be used under any circumstances. It is wrong period. I don't think our enemies should suffer the same fate either. E.G: I don't think Saddam Hussein should be tortured because it's a violation of his human rights and it's simply not the right thing to do.

Although it does offer the same ends justifying the means situation, the 747 scenario is different from those involving torture in some very fundamental ways. Most of these involve the perception of threat. In the former case, we know the jet IS hijacked, and IS pointed at a building containing several thousand innocent citizens. The evidence of this threat is very concrete. As for the situation involving torture, how can we EVER be 100 percent sure that one person or any group of people can offer information that will (for absolute certain) save lives. This is where the moral dubiety rears its ugly head on both this issue and the issue of execution. I do not think it is possible for any human controlled organization to be absolutely certain about these matters and therefore I cannot justify giving them the powers of life and death over any individual. As for torture, I am not in the least against denying them basic comforts if the threat is clearly defined. However, as Lance states, we live in a world where evil exists. Unfortunately, the U.S. appears to be the only force that is willing (let alone able) to deal with some of the problems facing humanity and this scares folks. It scares the rest of the free world because they dont want to one day be on the receiving end of American misuse of that power. This presents us with a SECOND responsibility. Not only do we have to deal with the threats facing not just ourselves, but the rest of humanity, but we also have to be above reproach in doing so. Obviously it is impossible to make everyone happy and still protect national security and I am not suggesting that we pull out of Iraq to make Europe happy (Lance is probably sighing in relief at this point; he thought I'd been reading George Soros). What I am suggesting is that simply to make the fight easier for us we must appear in every way to be above the unconscionable enemy we are facing. If we can accomplish this, there will present themselves less obstacles not only because the others will be more likely to see us on the side of good, but because we have done what is right and (I believe) God will reward us for it.

Should never be used? Hate to say never. But if you use torture or look the other way to torture- you are no better than what you are fighting- period. If you can live with that, fine.