A more interesting wording for this poll would have been "Is torture ever an effective interrogation tactic?"
Same answer.
Some would answer the same way, but it would not be unanimous like this poll is.
A more interesting wording for this poll would have been "Is torture ever an effective interrogation tactic?"
Same answer.
Now, how is Torture not a form of Terrorism in and of itself?
torture is terror.
This.
Can using terrorism prevent terrorism?
Of course not. If you use it, you haven't prevented it. QED
How about instead, can using an act of terror prevent an even worse act of terror?
Of course not. If you use it, you haven't prevented it. QED
Plausible deniability?I'll try not to derail the thread but I just gotta ask, is it possible that a few of our very same Politicians are just as brainwashed by the MSM as most people are? Would they also only see citizens of the Middle East as a bunch of crazies all just running around shouting "Death to the Great Satan" and "Allah Akbar" as if these people were the only able to utter two phrases?
I'll try not to derail the thread but I just gotta ask, is it possible that a few of our very same Politicians are just as brainwashed by the MSM as most people are? Would they also only see citizens of the Middle East as a bunch of crazies all just running around shouting "Death to the Great Satan" and "Allah Akbar" as if these people were the only able to utter two phrases?
Plausible deniability?
yes or no it doesn't matter. Torture is immoral.
Problem is, unless you have access to classified intelligence, you aren't in a position to know whether we do or don't in fact have ticking time bomb (or equivalent) scenarios going on.
[T]he C.I.A. mistakenly believed thatAfrican-American Muslim terrorists"ticking time-bombs" were already in the United States. The intelligence officials evidently pressed [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks] so hard to confirm this, under such physical duress, that he eventually did, even though it was false—leading U.S. officials on a wild-goose chase forblack Muslim Al Qaeda operatives"ticking time-bombs" in Montana.
Just another caveat of the unreliability of torture with regards to this absurd and incredibly unlikely scenario, but why wouldn't the bomb planter, who could be assumed to be somewhat absolute in their resolve, simply say it is located at X, Y, or Z until the allotted time passed?Problem is, you are not in a position to "know" whether we do or don't in fact have a "ticking time-bomb" scenario going on even if you DO have access to classified intelligence.
FTA: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture (h/t Lucille: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465235-The-Queen-of-Torture)
Torture is nothing but a particularly nasty and vicious form of confirmation bias - as evidenced by the fondness of its defenders for "ticking time-bomb" hypotheticals in which the torturers somehow "know" everything except where the "ticking time-bomb" is (just like those CIA bozos "knew" there were "African-American Muslim terrorists ... already in the United States").
Laurence Vance sums it up perfectly over at LRC ...
Thomas Sowell Defends Torture Yet Again
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/thomas-sowell-defends-torture-yet-again/
Laurence M. Vance (19 December 2014)
It is sad to see the brilliant conservative Thomas Sowell defending torture yet again. He did so back in 2009 and I criticized him for it then. Now, with the release of the CIA torture report, he is at it again:
If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City—set to go off today—and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when? Would you pause to look up the definition of “torture”? Would you even care what the definition of “torture” was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?
Gee, if we knew there was a bomb and we knew it was going off today and we captured someone whom we knew was a terrorist and we knew that he knew where the bomb was and we knew that he knew when the bomb would go off, why wouldn’t we also know these things?
Why do you think it does, Specs?
Do you feel that places such as Abu Ghraib promote terrorism or serve as a recruitment tool?
I suppose with regards to the relatively infinite scenarios that have occurred within human existence, maybe. It is pretty clear what the OP was referring to, though, but I suppose if semantically you disagree with the wording and are simply speaking of what might could occur with regards to the entirety of human existence, your point is noticed.So all you people that voted "No"; you mean to tell me that you dont' think torture ever has or could have prevented a terror attack throughout all of history?
I think it probably served as a recruitment tool. but that wasn't the question.
The poll question misses the point. The real question should be even if torture works to prevent terrorism, is it worth it? to that I would say NO.