I don't have a moral issue with using torture methods in special circumstances. It's more the fact you'd admit to anything to stop the torture, so any confession is unusable in a court of law and any evidence most likely a pack of lies. Rather than take a pro-torture CIA director's word on it, I'd want to see a proper inquiry into the historical effectiveness of torture in aiding intelligence services, starting with Gitmo.

Hell yes.

we used them before 9/11 don't let them fool you

I think discussing whether torture is effective at eliciting information from people is a bit of a moot point as it pertains to this question. The United States should not have used enhanced interogation techniques in the aftermath of 9/11 because the 8th amendment prohibits it.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue in the context of capital punishment. In Wilkerson v. Utah, the Court ruled that punishments are cruel when they involve "torture or a lingering death" but that death itself was not a cruel and unusual punishment. This case was referenced as recently as 2008 by Clarence Thomas in Baze v. Rees when the Court ruled that lethal injection was not cruel and unusual.

Now, were enhanced interrogation techniques/torture effective in gathering intelligence post-9/11? I think the answer to that question is probably yes. The evidence supporting torture can be murky, but most of what I have read tends to conclude that it can be effective in gathering information.

Antonin Scalia once posed the classic dilemma of whether we should torture a person who has information about a nuclear bomb that would go off in Los Angeles. If torture could save the lives of millions of people, I think it should be used because I generally subscribe to utilitarianism. But the problem is that we can't simply disregard the 8th Amendment.

Uh yeah, inquiry. Sort of like mueller trying to find out if Trump colluded with Russia? Been going on for a year and a half now. Not a good plan when the person you're asking questions of, may have hid a nuke somewhere, on a timer.





The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment against US citizens, not against prisoners of war.

This post was edited by Ghot on May 20 2018 05:51pm

While non-citizens do not possess all of the rights granted to US citizens, there have been a variety of Supreme Court cases that have applied Constitutional rights to non-citizens. Equal protection and right to privacy are two examples of rights that have extended to non-citizens outside of US borders.

Even in Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that suspending the writ of habeas corpus of Guantanamo Bay prisoners was unconstitutional.

The CIA typically works outside the realm of the law though. Our CIA sites are in other countries and we often "outsource" torture to other countries so that we can say that "we weren't involved." To me, the whole spy game thing has its own set of rules and as long as everyone plays by the rules, I don't have any moral reservations.

other countries were not involved. CIA was not involved either. Yeah men, yeah

Dick Cheney is an old family friend. He feels very certain that is necessary and I agree.

Yes, they may lie just to be set free and that is the biggest argument against its ability to work. However, there have been many documents declassified that prove how useful it is. The movie unthinkable gives an interesting perspective. Though my studies in foreign policy seem to prove undoubtedly that it works and is effective.

While I agree about the liklihood they're lying court of law doesn't really apply, as they're terrorists not in court. And in a world in which many claims can be checked quickly via satellite sometime wrong answers aren't all that problematic. You just resume torture when the satellite images show there's no secret ISIS base where the terrorist claimed there was.

I find the torturing of future plans to be silly tho, as well as confessions of being in a terrorist organization. wont take long for anyone to claim they are ISIS under the knife.