| enrageorange said: brendude13, he is saying torturing people often makes them confess things that the torturer wants them to confess, to avoid the torture. Just like when soldiers are captured by the enemy they often say are being treated well and then when released talk about the horrors they faced. They lied initially to avoid further torture.
As for the original arguement. Even enemy states such as North Korea, already sanctioned to hell, and hell bent on getting the attention of the world through nearly any means, don't dare try to arrest american presidents or former presidents when they visit. I think it goes without saying Canada, probably the United States' biggest ally, would do no such thing either. |
That's why you don't use torture for confessions unless false confessions are your point.
You use it to get information you can verify once received. They'll admit to anything, which means if they do have information they'll pass it on, and if they don't it's easy to verify as not true.
I'm not for torturing people, even known terrorists because I think it's inhumane...
but the "They'll confess to anything" arguement doesn't hold weight, since once you have that kind of information it's pretty easy to verify and worth the time it'd take compaired to just a random have no idea search of an entire city or whatever the scenario might be.
Torture definitly can save lives, the question is, is saving lives worth torturing? I mean sceintific testing on prisoners without their consent would save lives too, but we don't do that.
