irban wrote:How do you feel about torture?
Well, it has less collateral damage death/injury/suffering than, say, war.
Many argue that intelligence gathered from torture is not reliable, which would mean that at best there is no gain from using torture over conventional interrogation techniques, and may even hinder an effort with false leads.
I would say that regardless of the quality of the intelligence, a civilized nation should never stoop to torture. Torture falls well below the minimum standard of decency that should be applied to all living beings.
The greater good argument is a slippery slope. They garnered a lot of interesting data about human physiology in the concentration camps, but even if they had cured cancer, no one could attempt to try to justify their methods.
You could try to argue that the people being tortured would to do the same to us. Disregard that there are documented instances of false imprisonment, and with the current level of oversight and disclosure, we may never know how many. Instead, think how we are stooping to the level of our attackers, disregarding our own rule of law (even capital punishment is subject to cruel and unusual punishment standards), losing the moral highground and world opinion in the process.
Someone from the administration said something like, 'If I have to choose between the safety of our nation and the Constitution, I'll pick the safety of our nation'. Others reply, 'The Constitution is our nation'.