[x teehee]

I need some help with this for a speech I have to write. I need to come up with some arguments that are supportive of using torture (when absolutely necessary). However, the arguments have to be legal arguments, as in specific laws/amendments/rules/whatnot that say protection of people is number one, or something like that? I only found arguments against torture.

ack. this is hard. help?

[DaAzNkIgGa627]

Lol... I feel so bad trying to justify torture.

Well the main legal argument is to define torture not as torture (because waterboarding is just like taking a shower....)

And of course the Geneva Convention under no circumstances allows any state to torture (their definition being "severe pain or suffering") So really all you must do is say that our methods of "interrogation" aren't torture....

I'm probably no help... I'm too cynical on this, but that's the route I would go. You have to do exactly as this administration does... downplay what torture is...

[xkrn4lyfx]

Lol... I feel so bad trying to justify torture.

Well the main legal argument is to define torture not as torture (because waterboarding is just like taking a shower....)

And of course the Geneva Convention under no circumstances allows any state to torture (their definition being "severe pain or suffering") So really all you must do is say that our methods of "interrogation" aren't torture....

I'm probably no help... I'm too cynical on this, but that's the route I would go. You have to do exactly as this administration does... downplay what torture is...

yeah pretty much, you're not allowed to torture
only way to go is to define what torture is, like how far can you go w/o it being called torture?

but if u must give a good reason for torture, compels potential criminals from not commiting crimes, faster interrogation in life or death situations (law and order had like 5 episodes or something where a dude kidnaps a child and hides the child), a possible alternative form of punishment that cannot be distributed by standard methods (like instead of 50 hours of community service u get 20 lashes), probably more but i do believe in the 2nd one, in case where it's time sensitive material. because of the rights of the individual a crime can go on and law enforcement can do nothing about it

[marrymehyori]

The typical neo-con scenario for justified use of torture is "What if you captured a terrorist who tells you there is a nuclear bomb planted in the heart of NYC, but he won't tell you where it is or when it will go off."

Not sure how effective torture would be in such a case at getting a truthful answer, especially for those terrorists who are more than happy to die in the process of committing their terrorist acts. So I guess I'm not really giving you a good answer, but at least it's something to think about.

I don't think you'll find any support from any modern (past 50 years or so) western source that would accept the use of torture though, this seems like an assignment where you are expected to fail

I mean, there's nothing in the core articles of the constitution that would prohibit it, although the 8th amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". It's not as clear as it could be if that applies only to those who are already convicted of a crime, or if it applies at all times regardless of any and all considerations. Of course we'd all like to think it's the latter...

The fifth amendment further prohibits people being deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law. There doesn't seem to be any way to wiggle out of that one. Even the "except in time of War or public danger" part of the 5th appears to apply on to folks serving in the military (including milita), so that doesn't help you at all.

I got nothing for you :-/