Who the hell votes "YES" in a poll about torture being ok?

[LynneSin]

Check CNN's front page and their poll on the bottom right hand corner. The question of the day is as followed:

Is torture ever justified to get information from terror suspects?

I can't believe 61% of the folks that voted said YES

I can't believe this is something that any true American would EVER support

http://www.cnn.com

[taxidriver]

1. have you heard of "freeping" a poll?

[LynneSin]

3. Yes, I've heard of freeping

But geez, use common sense folks when freeping a poll. It's one thing to freep a poll on something stupid like "Do you approve of Bush's job performance" or "Will you buy Clinton's Book". But to approve of freaking torture is just wrong no matter how freaking conservative anyone might be!!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Good! Let's advertise the poll and their freeping of it!

Is there a "freep this poll" thread at FR for this one?

[HuskerDem]

89. I grew up with those freepers - I think it's their kids who are so blind

of insight and ugly. They think that ""showing weakness"" on the torture issue is the same thing as endorsing homosexual marriage and "gasp" holding a separate opinion from Cheney.

[trotsky]

2. Blinded by 9/11

A lot of raw emotion, coupled with the "go git 'em" American Hollywood attitude. I worked with a very intelligent, rational guy who completely failed to understand that a terror suspect is just that -- a SUSPECT -- who may or may not be guilty of anything. But a lot of people want vengeance, and as we've seen all throughout history, anyone from the "other" cultural group will do.

[ynot]

70. Never OK

Torture is never justified! Where do we draw the line? Who draws that line? Does it now become a tool of interrogation for police in their effort to solve crimes? Do we distinguish between non-violent property crimes and crimes of violence? Again I must ask where do we draw the line? To try and justify torture is like trying to justify the untold number of lynchings of blacks in America, the massacre of Jews by the Nazis, the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of people over the course of human history,the slaughter of the true Americans -- the Native American. Even if torture would yield positive results or benefits, it is not justifiable. NEVER!

[qazplm]

4. well

the problem is in the way the question is worded. It reminds me of my freshman english class in college a looonnngggg time ago.

The question in class was, is torture EVER allowed. The visceral response of course is no...but then you start laying out scenarios...

what if a terrorist has your child, and you know that if you torture this guy, he just might tell you where your child is before your child is killed.

It becomes a LOT harder to say, nope, would never torture, its always wrong.

Not to say some people still wouldnt say it, just saying that its a lot easier to say torture = bad on a general level, and more difficult on a personal level.

I would hope that i would never torture anyone, but if I had a child or wife who was in danger, and I thought a punch or two might save them, man, I dunno that I would be able to say no.

[Nadienne]

24. I've heard that torture doesn't always work.

Sometimes the one being tortured will give false information, especially if he/she doesn't know what the torturers want to know. I can understand that desperation might lead to considering torture as an option... But I think for the most part those that torture others, and perhaps even those who would consider torturing others, deep down enjoy the idea of inflicting pain...

[qazplm]

30. I think thats a serious

oversimplification. I do think some torturers enjoy hurting people. I know that I dont enjoy hurting people, I cant even watch TV shows where someone makes a fool out of themselves, havent been in a physical fight since I was a kid...so I dont agree that anyone who would consider torture deep down enjoys the idea of inflicting pain.

[Nadienne]

47. Well...

A mother considering the use of torture on the man who kidnapped her son... Maybe not all, perhaps not even most, but surely some mothers (or people in general) would feel some satisfaction that the man who hurt her and scared her and hurt her kid, would get a dose of that hurt for himself.

"Enjoying inflicting pain" might be putting it too strongly...

[TankLV]

73. Revenge and beating the shit out of someone is not the same as torture.

That is why I am against the death peanalty.

Now, if someone I loved was ever killed in a horrible manner, I would scream for revenge - but that is exactly why I am against the death penalty and would rely on the better in society to prevent me from being able to exact revenge - in spite of what I might feel at that moment.

[gpandas]

29. what if it was your child being tortured? n/t

[qazplm]

31. what if it was your child

who was being held captive?

It goes both ways doesnt it?

Are you going to tell me that if it was your child who was about to be beheaded in two days, and you had someone who might be able to give you info that would save them, that torture wouldnt even be considered by you?

[gpandas]

49. i'm not tellin', i'm askin'...

if it was your child being tortured???

[qazplm]

53. well golly I wouldnt like it

so whats your point? How does that address my point? All it does is reinforce my point, that your viewpoint may change when the stakes are either high or in this case personal, on BOTH sides.

[gpandas]

58. sorry, didn't get that as your point...

on edit, what i'm saying (or trying to) is that everyone is someones child.

[LynneSin]

85. What if I crossed the road at the same time a crazed driver madly...

...zooming through and could possibly hit and kill me?

Can I sit through life and worry about these things? These are one shot incidents that no one here whatsoever coud feasibly find an answer for until that exact moment that it actually happens.

Torture is wrong plain and simple; there is no justification. I have no clue what I would do should it be a family member, a friend or someone I loved because I know that the logic I'm using now would be totally wiped out with illogical thoughts of revenges.

But I'm not going to base my decisions on that one improbably moment that could feasibly but unlikely happen in my life.

Torture is wrong. Matthew Shepard's father stood up in court and spared one of his son's murderers from the Death Penalty. If he could do something like that despite the fact that this man beat his son and left him to die in the cold of Wyoming, I think I could try and do the same if it were my family member!

[gpandas]

102. exactly my point...

when the poster said, "what if your child could be saved by torture", i turned the table by asking, "what if your child was the one being tortured?" thanks for your help in this absurd thread.

[TankLV]

72. Bullshit - torture is ALWAYS wrong and should never even be considered.

No matter what imaginary scenerio you could come up with.

Never.

I'm simply amazed at how far we have fallen - and this is 2004! Not 1004!

And we all have ronnie raygun to thank for this state of affairs.

Before him, certain things people were afraid to voice, let alone admit to.

[Politicub]

5. It feels like we're being desensitized to torture

I hate to feel that way, but the idea of torture for most of the right has been reduced to nothing but a harmless prank.

You would think that the poll would be going in the other direction, but it probably portrays the reality of majority opinion.

It's very sad. It feels like something sinister is on the horizon with all of the detainments, enemy combatants, justified torture, etc. Something wicked this way comes.

[tom_paine]

11. We are...for when they use it AGAINST US.

How are you with having shit smeared on you?

Not so good myself, which is why I don't expect to live long enough to have Bushevik shit (or old tampons) smeared on to me.

Unless, they get the drop on me.

Horrific to be thinking these things and KNOWING that there is AT LEAST a 50% chance of it coming true if the Imperial Family retains power.

[MARALE]

6. Weird

I am appalled at the results. I did not believe it when I read it. I wondered how many had voted, but there were quite a few. I think it has to have been freeped, they erased their cookies or whatever. But to think freepers would be as cold hearted as that leaves me despondent.

[taxidriver]

9. hard believing theyre cold hearted? did you hear about the instance

in which a freeper got a DUer with the SN of misanthrope fired?

[MARALE]

45. I heard about that

I thought that it was just one mean, shallow, low-life that got his kicks from ruining someone's life. Horrible, but I did not think the shallowness and unfeelingness ran through them at a rate of more than 25%. I know most repubs are sheep that can't think for themselves, but to say that torture (not just abuse) can be OK in any circumstance is horrifying to me.

[MUSTANG_2004]

46. Are you comparing the two?

You're comparing someone notifying a radio station that a dj was speculating about playing subtly insulting "tribute" music to Reagan vs. advocating torture?

[taxidriver]

97. ..i'm saying they display similar coldheartedness. perhaps. n/t.

[tom_paine]

15. Freepers are the New Brownshirts, plain and simple

They aren't as violent, nor as overtly racist as their predecessors.

Much of what they do takes place in CyberSpace (which is lucky for them because they are MUCH more cowardly than the Original Brownshirts).

But make no mistake, Totalitarian Obedience is their mindset. They are as incapable of hearing information not approved by the Party as Nazis or Commies ever were.

Some of them would man the Death Camps or Gulags happily, some would merely support such actions for Enemies of the State. Some would just wipe the soot of the dead off their windows ever morning then turn on Faux ReichsPravda.

But make NO MISTAKE about WHAT we face and how high the stakes are.

The last time people did that, most didn't live long enough to profit from realizing their error.

It won't come in the old forms (that would be Bad Marketing), but it will come.

[darkstar]

7. It's people who believed in immutable

absolute truth of the b=Buible, the inviolate nature of the U.S. Constitution, and who, likewise, decry moral relativism and situational ethics.


Oh yeah. They'll also tell you that torute is justified b/c everything changed on 911.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. People who think they or someone they know

will never be 'suspects'.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. My conservative cow-irker.

He had absolutely no problem with the US torturing Iraqis. I believe his comment was "fucking Rags. Kill em all."

[Nadienne]

66. Remind him of that if he ever

defends Bush going into Iraq to "Liberate" the Iraqis.

[sui generis]

12. I'd like to get those sixty percent to answer this question:

what if somebody picked up your mother and tortured her because she lives next door to the terrorist? do you only confine yourself to terrorists? exactly how do you know the person you plan to torture is a terrorist?

I say this only because most of those 61% are American: Gee Whiz SOME Americans REALLY ARE profoundly stupid.

[gpandas]

28. is this a surprise? if so...

wake up to the greed, stupidity, ignorance, and self-righteousness of the large majority of americans.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. My word.

How sad is this? :cry: Our country has gone to hell in a hand basket!


Is torture ever justified to get information from terror suspects?

Yes 61% 32080 votes

No 39% 20850 votes
Total: 52930 votes

[Jacobin]

14. Its the Dershowitz hypothetical effect

Dershowitz: "What if you found out that there was a nuclear bomb about to explode somewhere in NYC and you captured one of the guys who put it there who refused to tell you where it was. Would torture be okay to get him to talk, tell you where it was and save the lives of millions?"

THAT, silly, idiotic, incredibly unlikely hypothet is floating about and many people say: "Well yeah, I guess it would okay then." Bingo, you have crossed the line and its no longer a matter of "if its ever okay" its now a matter of WHEN its okay.

Similarly, some cad is supposed to have asked a lady at a dinner party whether she would go to bed with him for $1 million dollars. She paused and thought about it with a smile on her face and nodded yes shyly. He then asked her if she would go to bed with him for $500 and she immediately became enraged and asked, "what do you think I am?"

His response was:"We've already established what you are. We are just negotiating the price"

I dunno why I thought of those things together, but maybe if we accept Dershowitz's hypothet, then we already know what we are.

[taxidriver]

18. i believe churchill used the price haggling reference once...

i actually thought it was pretty funny when i read it.

[TankLV]

74. And Churchill was quoting WC Fields.

and so it goes.

[qazplm]

20. my only question is

are people saying here, that there is NO scenario that they can ever envision, no matter how personally tied to you, where you would do anything more than loud yelling at someone who could have a good probability of helping you?

I think that's an awfully difficult moral pronouncement to make. I think torture is wrong. I think I have yet to see a scenario, including Abu Gharib where it is acceptable.

That having been said, I think that I could envision a scenario where it is either acceptable or the lesser of two evils or at the very least understandable and human.

I think you have no idea what part of the 60% is thinking like me, and what part is thinking, Dem Arabs are animals, kill em all. I have no doubt some are the latter, I also have no doubt some are the former.

[TankLV]

There is NO imaginable scenerio.

To even consider "when" not "if" it should be used is abominable.

[lagniappe]

61. A terrorist getting a nuke is not an idiotic scenario.

It would not suprise me at all if North Korea sold one of their nukes. Hell, Bill Clinton said this was possible just a few days ago. It is also very possible that Musharref could be overthrown in Pakistan by fanatical, Islamic militants. The thought of those guys getting nukes is very frightening. Do you think that if Bin Laden had these weapons, he would have used them on 9/11? You bet he would have.

It is easy to sit back and claim moral superiority. However, if you were given the responsibility to protect this country, what would you do if you captured a terrorist who had information about a nuclear bomb in NYC?

[tnlefty]

16. Did you happen to see the exchange between Wes Clark and Wolfie

earlier? It was great and I thought that Wolfie was going to cry.

Wolfie asked about torture and the standard blah, blah bullshit and Mr. Clark stated that torture is wrong and it is against the law. No one, not even the president is above the law.

Wolfie was red-faced and not happy that he couldn't get Mr. Clark to play along with his ridiculous scenarios.

Clark looked great and was very cool and composed through the whole thing. Internally I would've been screaming - WTF is wrong with you???!!!

[merh]

17. More importantly, WHO THE HELL CREATES A POLL

and thinks it is a legitimate question or position?
What intelligent HUMAN BEING would think to ask this question, yet alone answer "yes" to it?

:shrug: :cry: :cry:

[Delano]

19. If it says EVER, it's not freeped.

I guarantee you, even a lot of DUers think there are extreme circumstances where it could concievably be permissible. Including myself.

But torture as standard policy ala Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is unacceptable.

But if they've got a guy who knows where the massive terrror attack in 4 hours is going down, they may have to rough him up.

[Dardi]

22. Absolutely right

"Ever" is the key word. It allows for the Dershowitz scenarios. On this issue, most Americans are quite nuanced.

[newyawker99]

34. Hi Dardi!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[merh]

23. and pray tell, how will though know that he knows where

that terror attack is going to be in 4 hours or what he is telling you because you are beating the Sh** out of him is the truth.
9 out of 10 times, torture does not result in legitimate answers, it results in responses to stop the pain.

Give me a break. We cannot stop terror with terror, it is just that simple and that complicated.

[qazplm]

25. we dont the problem is

he might know and he might tell, and its human nature to do the mental arithmetic to say saving millions of people (or one loved one) trumps a beating to a terrorist/criminal. If you are wrong, you beat a guy, if you are right you save lives.

Not saying it's right, but there are scenarios where one does not have to be "an animal" to engage in torture, only human.

[aden_nak]

52. The Use Of "Ever".

Okay, here's the problem. I agree, to a limited extent, with this statement. Never say never, and all that good stuff. But there's another word in the poll that bothers me. "Suspected". In other words, is it permissable to torture people who MIGHT be terrorists to get information?

The larger issue with this poll, though, is that it supports a different general concensus than the wording suggests. For example, if we read the question carefully, we can see how it might be permissable, under extreme time constraints, to intimidate a prisoner to get information.

Of course, there's a long, long chasm of morality between smacking someone upside the head with the butt of a rifle and electrocuting his nuts with a nightstick jammed up his ass. . . and that's part of the problem. There's another vague word in there. "Torture" has many, many implications.

So while many people may be picking yes because, under extreme duress, they would consider slapping the crap out of a terrorist (or a suspected terrorist) in order to save the lives of thousands, the poll reads like an endorsement of torture as a standard interrogation practice.

Kudos who whoever at CNN worded this poll, you connotative whore.

[qazplm]

56. exactly!

That's the whole point I have been making, although I think its simply worded out of laziness, not out of "connotative whoreness" lol

[aden_nak]

103. The CNN Poll Guy Is A Prick

No, really, he is. Back before we decided to invade Iraq, there was a poll up that smacked of partisanism. . . and I kick myself to this day for not getting a screenshot. Mind you, this was CNN, not FauxNews. Though it should be rememebred that CNN has a pair of vested interests in the Iraqi War. First off, war makes for exciting news, and people will watch. Second, CNN has some serious oil men behind the cameras. Anyhow, the poll paraphrasingly asked:

When should the United States invade Iraq?

a) Now
b) After the deadline

The point is that BOTH options were to invade Iraq, and the only question was WHEN to do it, as if it were a foregone conclusion that we HAD to invade the country.

[Walt Starr]

21. This country has been Nazified

It's too late. We've gone down the same road that Germany went down in the '30's.

Torture is NEVER EVER justified and is 100% illegal under INTERNATIONAL law.

[Wwagsthedog]

26. You're right

It seems that most of our population has become desensitized to barbarism and violation of international law. Sad, sad, sad.

[lectrobyte]

27. ever justified? ever? ever? A kidnapper

has buried your loved one underground in a box, with two hours of air left -- you have caught him and subdued him in an empty hardware store after a bungled ransom drop off. They won't talk? What would you do? Would it involve key portions of the Black & Decker product line-up and electric fence charger?

Now, the trickier question: is it routinely justified in the delivery of "feedom" ?

[BiggJawn]

37. And I would tell you bullshit, just to make you stop for a while.

Emotionally, it seems like the "right thing" to do. But realistically, can you REALLY trust anything somebody's telling you while you're pinching their testicles with red-hot pliers?

I don't think so.

[Astarho]

68. And if they still don't talk

after repeated beatings, zappings or worse for two hours? Your loved one is dead. Or if they tell you a bunch of false locations that takes more then two hours to check out? Your loved one is dead. What then?

[TankLV]

76. No I would not. Period.

It wouldn't ever even ENTER MY MIND as a possibility.

This is depraved thinking.

[Forkboy]

32. Sick fucks is who

we got some here as well :puke:

[qazplm]

33. so I take it

your response to the above hypo would be to call the police and hope your loved one is found in two hours?

Well, I guess that's easy to say on an internet chat board, but I find it much harder to believe were it to happen in real life.

[TankLV]

77. Yes we do.

So sad.

SO very sad.

Thank you ronnie raygun and repukes everywhere.

[qb]

35. Scary. There are plenty here at DU.

I guess it's time to start building torture chambers at police precincts, just so we'll be prepared for all of these "what if" scenarios.

[qazplm]

36. oh geez

no, but what it means is that perhaps we understand human nature before we go labeling people "sick" simply because they CAN envision a scenario where torture could be a lesser evil.

[qb]

43. We're talking about justifying torture as official US policy

not examining human nature.

[qazplm]

55. no

we are talking about a CNN poll that asks if you can EVER justify torture.

I didnt see anything in that poll about "justifying torture as official US policy"...that's why I and others have said its a poorly worded poll.

[qb]

101. I was reading between the lines. It was poorly worded by design.

CNN is a tool of the Bush administration. They are softening up the public so we will accept what the U.S. government sanctioned at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

At least Bush is now on record saying he will "Never order torture." Not even if his daughters are trapped in a box and Saddam knows where the key is.

[merh]

48. If you find justification in TORTURE, then you are wrong.

Torture does not result in legitimate responses - it results in a response for the purpose of answering and making the torture stop.

Stop playing video games, stop watching barbaric movies and videos and stop sullying my nation with your acceptance and justification of behavior that is WRONG - whether you are cop or soldier - abuse and torture are wrong. Having worked in law enforcement/corrections I know that the bad does not justify the good and I know what the consequences of the bad are or can be.

And, just on the off chance you personally profess some type of religious preference such as Christianity, TURN THE OTHER CHECK.

OUR PRESIDENT KNEW THE ATTACKS WERE COMING AND HE DID NOTHING - now we justify torture to prevent attacks! HYPOCRITES

[qazplm]

57. well

torture ordinarily doesnt result in useful info, but it does sometimes. NO ONE has argued that torture is justified to prevent attacks. The only point being made by anyone is simply that the poll as worded was so broad and general that it encompassed any hypothetical situation and thus why you had so many yes votes, because nearly everyone, including most DUers could envision a yes scenario and voted accordingly.

So, if ya dont mind, you can put your overwrought capitalization back in yer holster please.

[merh]

62. This poll was designed to achieve the "Mass Hysteria" results

that it is accomplishing, just as this "war" is capitalizing on the mass hysteria caused by the WTC and Pentagon attacks. If a "civilized" society justifies the use of torture and if you, as a member of that society, are not incensed, then the worry lamented on DU regarding the future of our nation is indeed justified. The use of torture cannot be justified.

I WILL USE THE CAPITAL LETTERS AS I PLEASE. TORTURE IS WRONG!!!!

[TankLV]

80. Save your breath. The idiots won't listen.

They enjoy the neat logos and music from "Operation Freedom" and all those neat and "beautiful" explosions and stuff.

[merh]

63. This poll was designed to achieve the "Mass Hysteria" results

that it is accomplishing, just as this "war" is capitalizing on the mass hysteria caused by the WTC and Pentagon attacks. If a "civilized" society justifies the use of torture and if you, as a member of that society, are not incensed, then the worry lamented on DU regarding the future of our nation is indeed justified. The use of torture cannot be justified.

I WILL USE THE CAPITAL LETTERS AS I PLEASE. TORTURE IS WRONG!!!!

[TankLV]

79. No - they ARE sick individuals who could EVER even consider

using torture.

Period.

There is no excuse.

That you feel free to argue the point is an example as how low we have fallen.

This discussion would have been UNTHINKABLE before the 80's amd ronnie raygun's "amerikkka".

[LittleApple81]

38. Getting to know you...Remember that song? This is the type of

situation when you really get to know your fellow Americans. I don't care if it is freeped or not. That ANYBODY that comes from a CIVILIZED country says yes, is an INSULT to humanity.

[qazplm]

59. wow

so if mom says, I voted yes because I thought about what if I knew a guy was holding my kid hostage and she was going to die in two hours if I didnt do someone, then that person is an "insult to humanity"?

Ya gotta be kidding me. I can see saying you think its wrong, but the level some of you are taking it, as if anyone who could even envision such a scenario is human scum, is somewhat silly.

If you cant draw the line between the torture cuz they are subhuman from the well I suppose in this very personal and extreme scenario I could imagine it, well man must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

[TankLV]

82. No - we're not so complete corrupted in our thinking as you seem to be.

And if it was you, your mom, or anyone who would ever envision using torture, then THEY ARE INDEED SCUM AND SUB-HUMAN in need of psychological help - pronto!

[Djinn]

92. works both ways

An Iraqi mother who knows her son is being held by US forces and knows that he'll be being tortured and may be killed by those forces who invaded her nation - if she gets the chance is it OK for her to apply electric shocks to the genitals of 19 year old Private Joe Blow from Arkansas? can she set a dog on him? can she force him to masturbate another US soldier??

Or are American lives worth that little bit more

[Hubert Flottz]

39. Fools!

The terraists have won!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

40. If question was...

...should it be reasonable to beat confessions of Al-Qaedia links out of Arab-Americans? Most Freepers would still vote "yes".

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Alan Dershowitz?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. That would be my first guess

It is certainly a difficult arguement.

[Gothmog]

44. Being freeped

Poll is being freeped big time.

[merh]

50. KICK

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Do you have any evidence that it is?

Is it possible that this is what a majority of Americans believe?

[leftofthedial]

54. the good murkans

if ashcroft or rumsfeld says they're a terrist, then torture is okay.

thumbs up.

[lil-petunia]

60. Gimme an "F" an "R" an "E" "E" "P", an "E" and "R" what's that spell?

Does that answer your question?

[opihimoimoi]

64. People who vote YES are the ones who think THEY and their families are

safe from retribution. As Sen Biden said "We signed the Geneva Convention to protect OUR kids from torture".

Sooner or later if we keep up this shit, more and more of our soldiers are going to be tortured/beheaded. I really don't think this is what America really wants. But because of the perverse thinking, this is what we will soon see. Pity.

[Insider]

69. spent a week with reserve folks

recently, for training. we had daily jokes about abu graib. i was not surprised, but disgusted just the same.

[TankLV]

71. There are sadly many WHO POST ON THIS BOARD that condone it!

Now that's just disgusting.

There is NEVER a good reason to use or encourage the use of torture!

I can't believe we are even discussing this in 2004.

My how far we have fallen - thank you ronnie raygun.

[thebigmansentme]

78. i can only

reiterate my point.

when you lock somebody up, that is torture in itself already. everything else is relative. i, for the life of me, can not understand how playing a metallica song on repeat and making prisoners stay awake for days in a row (stuff that we have been doing for years and noone complained about) is better than putting a hood on a naked guy.

[TankLV]

83. Good one.

Guess I know where to go for a relativist.

I guess you would condone abusing children and pedophillia.

Nice set of brain cells ya got there!

(sarcasm off)

[drdigi420]

75. the kind that are too stupid to realize

that information retrieved via torture is highly unreliable as the torturee will tell the torturer anything to get the torture to stop.

[Lost147]

81. This is what I hate

America use to hold the moral integrity over its enemies because we didn't do things like that. I remeber my father talking about how when ever the Soviet and American hockey teams would play against each other it was a big deal. The Soviets would smack the Americans in the background when refs wouldn't be looking. The Americans once they got smacked turned around and tried to start a fight. That had been basic American policy for many years. We didn't fight dirty little wars in the background and torture people and then have to justify it. If we got attacked we would turn around and strike back with full force.

[thebobartist]

84. Actually, I think

that it's a little short-sighted to say that torture is never "okay". What if it was your only chance? One death, or twenty thousand? Come on, here.

[LynneSin]

86. How can I live my life filled with "What ifs"

We're talking about a situation that might never probably happen and a decision based on emotions and not using your brain!!!!

I would never ever judge anyone here if I found out they had to use torture in order to find a loved one that was being held hostage. But how many folks here can claim they actually had to do that.

Those prisoners in the jail were NOT doing anything that warrented the type of abuse they received. THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED and I find no words or logic to explain why they did that.

[lagniappe]

87. You seem to be agreeing that there MIGHT be a situation

where torture was warranted.

The poll did not ask whether the torture at Abu Ghraib was justified. It wasn't. It was reprehensible.

Several have already pointed out that the poll asked if torture was EVER justified. It was a hypothetical question and a hypothetical answer is valid. By saying you would never judge anyone if they used torture to find a loved one is, in effect, answering yes to the poll.

I would answer yes to that poll simply because I don't have an good answer for the one scenario put forth by Alan Dershowitz. It amazes me that some of the holier than thou posters on this board won't even recognize that Dershowitz poses a dilemma. They just dismiss his argument and don't address the question.

[walldude]

88. Princess Leia

Vader could not get her to talk at all. When she was faced with the destruction of her home planet she caved in and gave Tarkin false information, now I realize I'm a Star Wars geek and this is just a movie but c'mon you think Terrorists are going to give away real information? I read somewhere that the difference between us and them is that we fight to live. They believe the afterlife is more important than this one so they fight to die. No matter what you do to them they believe they are the rightious ones and they will die for their cause. They see death as a way out. Fighting terrorists by using the same tactics as they do gives them a victory. The goal of a terrorist is to create terror and fear. Right now we are so terrified that some of us are willing to condone the torture of a person, who may or may not be guilty to relieve us of that fear. We need to get at the root of the terrorist problem. I for one am not stupid enough to believe that we were attacked because, they are evil, they hate our freedom, we are Christians(being a Jew I love that one) they are evil, blah, blah, blah, somehow I think that at one point these people needed our help and we slapped them down. I know we helped them fight the Soviets then turned our back on them when the Soviets were beaten back. Somehow I think that U.S. foreign policy might have something to do with why we were attacked. Somehow I don't think we are becoming as bad as they are, I think we already were. While the right wing will say I'm a terrorist sympathizer, a blame America firster, anti-american, un-patriotic and giving aid to the enemy :crazy: I say that my daddy didn't raise no fool, that Washingon and Jefferson would be slapping the shit out of the Bushies, and to quote "The Boss" "Blind faith in your leaders can get you killed....."

[thebobartist]

94. That's why

I'm so confused. I don't think we have a way to determine whether torture is EVER acceptable or not. Of course it wasn't called for at Abu Ghraib, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

[lagniappe]

95. For this one case, it would be clear for me.

We must make difficult decisions all the time. You can't make absolute rules because there are exceptions.

You could say that in general it is wrong to kill. But, we know that there are exceptions. No one on this board could ever accuse the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy of being immoral for killing Nazis.

Is it okay for a woman to terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy 1 day before she gives birth? I would say no, but I would also say that there is nothing wrong with the morning after pill. I don't know where to draw the line between those endpoints.

I don't know how you would determine when torture is acceptable. I do believe that in the terrorist w/nuke scenario, it is justified. But, I don't think it would be justified if the terrorist only had a pipe bomb. It certainly is not justified for POWs or enemy combatants. I don't know where to draw the line, but I do think that Alan Dershowitz has it right. The president must approve and take full responsibility it happens.

[LynneSin]

99. Nope,still say it's wrong and still would have voted no

What someone might do in the "heat of the moment" (aka Dershowitz) vs. what a government might do knowingly & willingly are two very different situations.

[TryingToWarnYou]

90. I would be interested in knowing...

If that same 61% would like their sons and daughters tortured in the same ways if they were POW's in Iraq. Hey, its perfectly acceptable to gain information ya know...

Ill bet you a million dollars that this will be another case of "Do as we say, not as we do".

[Liberal_Dog]

91. I'm Sure One Vote Is That Of Bill O'Reilly

eom

[neebob]

93. Probably the same people

who heard Ted Nugent on Hannity's radio show today, bragging about how he'd been on some tour of Afghanistan and Iraq with Toby Keith and gone to a hospital and seen some guy die from an RPG hit and being called a great American by Hannity, and the two of them generally congratulating each other and saying how swell it is that our guys are dying so "we" can have our freedoms (read: so The Nuge and Hannity can make some bux), who were listening before I tuned in and long after I turned it off in total disgust made a note to myself never to do that again, and thought that was OK.

[nodehopper]

96. Torture is often presented as "ok" to Americans in a "ticking bomb"

scenario.

I think a lot of people who vote yes have something like that on their brain.

[0rganism]

105. Medium Lobster's extrapolation of Dershowitz's "ticking bomb" story....

Torture: A last recourse we may require sooner and sooner

The Medium Lobster has been disquieted of late at by the latest round of Iraq torture scandal news. There has been much uproar - among that irritating minority which have not been studiously scrutinizing the week's top story, the beatification of Ronald Reagan, at least - regarding the powers of the president and the incompatibility of torture with a liberal democracy. In the midst of all this, the Medium Lobster would like to offer those with cooler heads some perspective as to the merits of harsh interrogation.

Imagine there is some weapon of mass destruction planted by terrorists in the heart of a city, ready to go off - a "ticking bomb," if you will. Would it be wrong to torture a terrorist to find the location of such a device and save the millions of lives at risk? Hardly. Now, what if instead of torturing a terrorist, interrogators had to torture a confederate of that terrorist - some associate who would know where the terrorist was so they could locate that ticking bomb? Is that dirtying of our hands such a high price to ask in the goal to protect millions? I think not. Now, what if instead of a terrorist's comrade, interrogators have a terrorist's relative or neighbor? Is it still justified to go as far to save innocent lives? I should hope so! And what if that terrorist has a lot of relatives and neighbors - hundreds, even? Would it be wrong to grant blanket authority to torture hundreds of prisoners knowing full well that any of them could have the crucial information required to save a city? Certainly not! And what if the threat we're faced with is not a bomb at all but an even more pernicious threat - a rogue nation with the potential capability to someday construct that bomb? Would it not be America's right - no, her duty - to invade that country, occupy it, and set up a system of torture-like interrogations to rid that country of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction once and for all? Absolutely!

Indeed, the most unsettling question being raised by these latest news items is not the issue of torture itself, but the question of whether America will be strong enough to use that torture to defeat the enemies of life and liberty. The Medium Lobster can only hope that this great nation will retain its nerve.
---

Hehe, fafblog rocks: http://fafblog.blogspot.com/

[fujiyama]

98. frightening

What's happening to this country is is just plain frightening.

Otherwise intelligent people are just not thinking straight. This administration's course of actions have set a tone of insanity.

[Aidoneus]

100. People who should be tortured first, of course

Then afterwards, take the poll again. I suspect, and this is only a theory, that their feelings on the subject might change.

[oldcoot]

104. Your theory is correct

I suspect that the reason so many people were willing to answer this question "yes" is that they believed that this is something that could never happen to them. They believe that the police and the military are infallible and would never arrest an innocent person (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary)so anyone who is arrested deserves what he or she gets. They also believe that they are safe because they would never do anything wrong. If they were tortured, they would feel differently.