Other non-torture methods can be just as effective, if not more so. Perhaps the deadly mix of fear, humiliation, abandonment, and open-ended sadism that the practice connotes.
The article is dated to February of Other non-torture methods can be just as effective, if not more so. What we have is a case of equivocation. It leads to a weakening of international law, which could lead to torture retaliation for our prisoners.
Rather, it could merely be an argument that we should improve our techniques. If only because of the rank hypocrisy behind it, one should not extend to rendition the customary distinction between directly causing harm and merely allowing it.
We must also remember and take heart from one more lesson from history: How wouldyou answer this? I am not saying this is not allowed to influence your decision—one cannot shield oneself from all moral calculus. Because it lies at the core of the "torture issue" itself, which, with the wide support it enjoys, is indeed an issue.
Torture is barbaric; rendition is barbaric and hypocritical. The complexity of a code must be honored. That alone justifies a total ban on torture. A root-canal patient can tell you all about eternity.
My answer on this matter would vary depending on other relevant facts that are not available to me. The requirements coming from home are really unbelievable in terms of breadth and detail. This lack of information and knowledge is all the more astounding in that Himmler's men employed every means to extract confessions Although torture has produced many false confessions, it has also played a role in uncovering some self-proving truthful statementssuch as the locations of bombs, plans, or people.
Marcos of the Philippines used the excuse of popular unrest to declare martial law in and institutionalize the practice of torture there causing the torture, maiming, and execution of thousands of Filipinos. Or do we owe our safety to more traditional human intelligence, non-coercive interrogations, and cyber intelligence?
Torture is not the answer to this problem. The reality is that all societies are vulnerable to some, hopefully few, attacks on their civilian populations.
To learn more, please visit: Still, it contains more than a few shocking revelations.A median of 45% across the countries polled said they did not believe use of torture by their governments against suspected terrorists to try to gain information about possible attacks in.
But perhaps no choice of evils is more controversial than the use of torture to secure real-time intelligence against imminent acts of terrorism. Is there ever a justification for the use of torture?
A signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, the United States "does not torture."  Yet abundant evidence indicates that it does, directly or by proxy—and in fact always has. An old American tradition of state-sponsored torture even has its own lexicon: SOA, Kubark, Phoenix, MK-Ultra.
The point is, it doesn't matter if we torture prisoners or give them the royal treatment, much of the media and world opinion will believe what they want to believe. Terrorists under duress may give us information that we didn't even know to ask.
Nevertheless, the executive summary made public this week after four years of research (and at a cost of some $40 million) continues to raise serious questions about the CIA’s use of torture in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Inthe United States passed a law prohibiting the use of torture by American military under any circumstances. Furthermore, the U.S.
was bound, as a signatory, to comply with the Geneva Convention, which prohibits torturing prisoners-of-war.Download