What if one of your new friends had secret plans to bomb some place? Would it be okay if you were black-bagged, dragged from your home, and tortured for hours for information you had no clue about?
I'm really glad you mentioned this. Police cannot arrest you without sufficient cause. They can have you come in and answer questions, but that's it. I am in NO WAY advocating torture to be used flippantly like in the situation you suggest. Like during the iraq war, there were strict regulations about who, when, and how torture was used, specifically, it was used on KNOWN TERRORISTS whom the government KNEW had information, who steadfastly REFUSED to cooperate in any way.
Even if you were fine with such a scenario in the name of security I still wouldn't wish it on you. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
"Fine" isn't the word I would use. Despite what some may think, I do believe that the concept of torture is appalling. Unfortunately, the world is far from black and white. I certainly call for absolutely exhaustion of every other possible means of getting required information before torture even enters the picture, but in some cases, torture very well may be the only way to get a terrorist to talk. It's in those situations where I feel its a necessary evil.
The "saving lives" argument only works if it has been demonstrated that torture saves lives. It hasn't.
That's factually incorrect. Yes, without the ability to view all the currently classified documents pertaining to it, we don't have a perfect view of the use of torture in its entirety, but it is a fact that information gleamed from torture has helped stop attacks. Whether or not torture was "needed" is what is up for debate. The following is a good, unbiased article on the subject. I'm admittedly quoting portions pertaining to my opinion of the topic, but it addresses points from all sides.
But there is a body of evidence suggesting that brutal interrogation methods may indeed have saved lives, perhaps a great many lives -- and that renouncing those methods may someday end up costing many, many more.
Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."
Dennis Blair, Obama's own national intelligence director, who said in an April 16 memo to his staff that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding" of Al Qaeda.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090425_8738.php
As a matter of legal principle, there has to be an uncrossable line. Relativity is extremely dangerous. Few people would instinctively object to shaking and shouting intended to reveal the location of a ticking bomb, but most would object to prisoners being kept without charge and deprived of their senses while being subjected to demeaning interrogation for years on end, just so that we can get the address of someone we want to kill. The fact is that the torture the US uses is always of the latter and never of the former type, probably because the former scenario never happens.
Shouting and being physically aggressive during interrogations does happen, far more than it seems like you give credit. As far as your second example, that's not what I accept as "reasonable" (for lack of a more appropriate word) use of torture. But in any case, it seems like a number of people here consider even shouting and shaking to be forms of torture. Where would you draw the line? When does basic "aggressive" interrogation become "torture"?
The concept of justified torture is a myth that appeals to armchair CIA agents, fans of 24 who can't distinguish fact and fiction, and unscrupulous politicians who want to pander to a bloodthirsty and cowardly populace.
Well, I'm none of those. Never even saw a single episode of 24.
That's the risk you take. You don't throw your principles away because they're inconvenient.
Regardless of one's opinion of torture, it really bothers me that you consider the deaths of innocent lives as inconvenient.
First it's minor maltreatment, then it's waterboarding (which is torture), now, people are calling for outright torture.
No one here is calling for outright torture. I asked you this before, but you didn't answer...We've traded the arrest and (occasional) torture of terrorists for outright execution without due process (the collateral of which is death of innocent people near by). So, which is worse?
Purposefully capturing/arresting terrorists, and using torture on some to capture more terrorists
OR
Not capturing/arresting them, and simply dropping bombs on suspected terrorists (and killing civilians in the process, which only fuels more contempt for the US and passion in the terrorists)