Is torture ALWAYS wrong? [View All]

I always wonder if anyone out there sees this like I do so I thought I'd ask. In my opinion, which I'm sure won't be popular, Yes... there are situations where it would be ok to torture someone to get information. Now, before anyone has a conniption let me explain why and when I think it would be ok.

It'll sound funny, but half the reason I think torture is acceptable (off the book, not officially) is because I'm a big "24" fan. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm well aware that's fiction and this is real life, but try to listen for a moment. There was an episode a season or two ago where Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) and CTU (the Counter Terrorist Unit) captured a man involved with the planning stages of a terrorist group stealing and mounting a stolen nuclear warhead on a missile they had assembled inside the US. The problem was the terrorist caught wind of him being captured and called an international civil liberties lawyer to meet them at CTU.

Now the warhead had already been stolen and it was being mounted as they were hauling the guy in. Time was of the absolute essence, but they couldn't do what they wanted to do to this guy (who was a US citizen by the way) in order to get the info he had out of him in time and the president (who was a pansy all fans of the show hated... not President Palmer, but the other dude) refused to allow them to use torture as a means to make him talk. Long story short Jack said ok, let him go.

They did let the suspect go, but Jack was in the backseat of dudes car waiting on him. Basically he started snapping his fingers until the guy told him what he needed to know and talk the man did. And he did give up the correct information.

Now, back to reality here. My point by relating that was to illustrate a situation in which I think it would be proper to use any means necessary to get the information they needed. They were in the middle of a dangerous situation in which they knew the plot was in motion with only a small window of opportunity to shut the whole thing down before hundreds of thousands got killed. Make believe or not it isn't as if something similar couldn't occur. We all know that our Nuclear power plants and other facilities are vulnerable.

In my opinion, as distasteful as it is, torture is acceptable in a situation where you know a plan is in motion with hours, rather than weeks, months or years are available to stop it. And let me be clear... I certainly don't agree with the way it is used by this administration who apparently think it's like a damn broad sword, huge and a weapon that's actually meant to crush rather than cut, swinging at any and everybody they can aim it at. It's actually a scalpel that should be used to cut out and extract an exact target for an exact purpose that time does not permit to be isolated and leveraged any other way.

I'll say this to be clear. Picking up and detaining dozens and dozens while denying their human rights and sending them to be tortured in other countries in order to maybe, possibly, catch a hold of some pie in the sky plot that you don't even know is real or will ever materialize is not right. However, in the midst of a detailed, pains taking, evidence based investigation where you find that something is already in motion and your timetable is hours rather than weeks and years to stop it and you have a suspect all the evidence shows is connected to it? Ugly as it maybe you do what you have to do to save the lives of your citizens.

I will also say that in my opinion it should remain "officially" illegal. There are things in this world that you shouldn't open your mouth to condone, but muck and mire of reality makes necessary to clean up a particular mess. It was interesting... I saw a video on waterboarding somewhere where they did a bit of demonstration of how the process works. Clearly the shit is torture. This BS semantics game Bush and his administration is trying to play with us like we're stupid is infuriating. However, on that same video there was a law professor (I believe) who said if there is going to be torture then it should be doled out the same way search warrants and wire taps are. You go to a judge, present your evidence and receive permission. Though I don't like the idea of putting torture on the books as policy if it needs to be done then this kid of oversight and accountability in the process should be had. Perhaps it should be had no matter what and my "off the books" perception of how torture should be handled is off base... perhaps dangerous in the wrong hands and I acknowledge that.

Well that's where I'm coming from on it. I generally don't like when people talk in absolutes. I'm not saying some don't exist, but is torture really ALWAYS unjustified? I don't think so. The situations are few and scattered where it is, but they exist nonetheless. No need to be insulting about this. I just wanna hear what everyone else is thinking.