1st answer: I said yes. The way I see it, we live in a violent and dangerous world, and thus sometimes I feel it only appropriate that we receive important information via violent and dangerous ways. The key word is sometimes... I don't think we should resort to torture all the time, but it can certainly produce results, and thats the important thing. An interesting thing the opening paragraph told me is that information received from torture is "notoriously unreliable". Thats something to keep in mind.
2nd answer: Yes again. The important thing that is being stressed to me is America's own policies on torture. Thanks to the Geneva Conventions, we must treat POW's humanely. I don't still don't think a little treaty from WWII should affect our outlook on current-day conflicts.
3rd answer: Yes. Once again, times have changed, and our world is still changing. To say that the US can't "stoop to our enemy's level" doesn't make sense to me. Torture, in my opinion, has nothing to with morality and whether or not what you are doing is humane. We can use torture to win, and that is very important.
4th answer: No. I decided to go with no just to see what the rebuttal would be. Now it's saying that information gathered via torture isn't unreliable? That is a total contradiction to what was stated before. Basically, there's no scientific proof of whether or not torture is beneficial.
5th answer: No. This final response was more hypothetical than anything else. It seemed to explain how I felt. When it boils down to it, I believe torture should be admitted, but under extreme conditions. I'm not saying it is respectable to torture someone who being cooperative. When it comes to our enemies that tell us anything, then we need to play a little dirty to achieve results. There isn't really anyway to sugar coat that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment