Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on a person in order to compel an action from the victim. Reasons for torture include punishment, intelligence gathering and coercion. In 1948, after World War II, the United Nations outlawed torture when it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Opponents of torture argue that the government should never practice torture since it is inhumane and illegal under international law. Proponents argue that the military should not be prevented from using torture if they believe it will keep the country safe.
Yes! These are not the traditional enemy combatants that have signed onto the Geneva convention agreement. They are clandestine, guerrilla warfare zealots who will give their lives for their cause anyway.
No, and prosecute those that authorized the uses of torture (waterboarding is torture according to the Geneva convention) including George W bush and **** Cheney
I think we should stop telling the world what we would do. Terrorists need to be afraid.
Enhanced interrogation should be allowed as well as psychological interrogation. These terrorists perform extreme atrocities on anyone, including innocent civilians. Our enhanced interrogation is child's play compared to what they do. This question should really be answered by someone under the threat of terrorism, or who has family of friends in captivity or otherwise affected by a terrorist act. You can pretty much guess what the answer will be 99.9% of the time.
Yes, IF combatants of the USA use these techniques. NO, IF combatants of USA do not use these techniques.
Always keep in mind anything we condone to be done to others will also be done to us. Do we want our daughters and sons subjected to these techniques? If not then we cant do it to others.
No, the Geneva Convention is explicit that these forms of torture are unethical and illegal; doing so would defy international law.
Only when against combatants not formally associated with a recognized National military
You can't expect to win or survive if the playing fields have different levels & rules!! Simply put ! If you let it be known that you will only bring a knife to a Gunfight ---you remove fear & caution on the Enemies side!!!
No, unless there is a known and imminent threat (like a dirty bomb set to go off).
No, torture is inhumane, unethical and ineffective, provides a powerful recruitment tool for terrorists, and those responsible should be jailed
Yes, and add old fashioned disembowelment, quartering, and the rack!
We are the only country in the world that worries about being politically correct. If you go to any other country illegally and get caught, you will see horrible conditions, and not get any fair treatment. If you are believed to be a terrorist or spy in another country water boarding would be at the bottom of their lists. Other countries do much more horrible things like electrocution tactics, etc.. Yes torture is cruel, but how cruel is the planning of mass murder in the name of a religion. When you deal with animals that think a man, woman or child don't have the right to live because they don't believe in their ideology, well in my opinion the gloves need to come off.
No, we should strictly follow the laws of the Geneva Convention, but also must prevent the psychological, emotional and physical stress toll that it will take on our soldiers.
Depending on the information hoped to be gained and the level of crime committed
Yes, but only as a last resort to a convicted terrorist, and if there is imminent danger to the country.
No, torture is proven to give unreliable information, is unethical and violates the 8th amendment
Yes, but there must be very sustainable evidence suspecting them to a terroristic crime or threat.
i feel yes but to a limit where they not killed or harmed to bad its permanent
Yes that goes for gang members too
Yes, but only after refusing to cooperate for a very long time, and not responding to orders.
Even after learning more, I don’t get it
Yes, but only as a last resort and if they are convicted terrorists
Yes, as long as they are not a United States citizen
No, torture is completely ineffective and unethical
My stance is simple the government interrogation tactics is none of my business.
No, they should interrogate them like how the police interrogate.
No, we should not be allowed to but we should do it anyways without public knowledge.
Yes, but only when the organization their doing it too is guilty of doing the same too their prisoners
No, unethical and ineffective
As long as it doesn't pose a threat to the American Constitution or people. But the Military is it's own branch, they can do what they want.
Only top secret teams on black ops missions should be allowed to
Yes, but let the decision be made by a jury in a court of law.
no, but only if it is the last resort and it is known that they are convicted terrorists
Yes, because the government is probably already doing it and will most likely continually do it in the heat of the moment like most interrogations are; they are trying to protect American lives so I do not think the "interrogators" should be punished for what they deem as necessary interrogating for our safety
No, because it is torture and therefore violates international law.
Yes if the intel is strong.
To some degree there needs to be a more advanced level of interrogation compared to what we see for crimes in the U.S.
This won’t change regardless
if it will prevent an attack on us soil
Yes, but only if they are not citizens
If the terrorist in question isn't a citizen of the US, knock yourself out.
Torture is unacceptable and violates the 8th amendment, however, psychological ways are also atrocious. Any interrogation techniques that do not harm the person physically or mentally is acceptable.
No, it has been proven that torture does not work. Leading to false statements.
Yes, but stop at waterboarding and psychological tactics.
Only if the nations safety and lots of lives are at risk in the next 2 days.
yes, waterboarding is not torture compared to what they do in other evil nations.
No, they're unconstitutional.
Yes. At least the threat of it needs to be an option, not something the suspect will know will not happen.
Depends on the immediacy of the threats representing the US and her people
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
