Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

If 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented From Administering Torture To Terrorists, Would You Still Be Against It?

A hypothetical question for those who are against torture.

Update:

Ed J: Thanks for not answering the question. Try again next time.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes because that would bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people, i.e, the suffering of a handful against the thousands who died in 9/11.

    However, there is no way to know that torture will yield safety or information. What if we get the wrong guy? Because of that risk, that lack of definite knowledge, we cannot torture someone. That risk is unacceptable.

  • hog b
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Here's another hypothetical question:

    "If 9/11 could have been prevented by the US having a moral foreign policy, would you still be against it?"

    As to the question, it is based on a false premise, nobody with any interest, or capacity for independent thought, still believes the official 9/11 narrative of 19 fanatical Muslims running rings round the best defended country in the world.

    Even you could see through it, if you took the scales from your eyes.

  • e w
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Torture is un-American, and against international law.

    Such medieval tactics produce next to nothing credible.

    If I were tortured, I'd admit to starting WWII, to assasinating Lincoln, to committing the Great Train Robbery, and assasinating Julius Caesar on the Ides of March!!

    Is there some shortage of the truth drugs that they use for interrogation? Seems to me that those are pretty effective, from what I've heard.

    The use of torture is what police states do, run by dictators.

    Torture was used by Stalin, Hitler, and apparently George W. Bush.

    The end does not justify the means. This is supposed to be America, not a police state.

    We're supposed to have "equal justice for all," and where is the justice for prisoners held without due process and tortured?

    We're supposed to be better than that.

    The individuals held at Guantanamo weren't proven to be terrorists, not convicted of any crime, not given any hearing, and were treated disgracefully and criminally by our own government.

    If they suspect you of terrorism, do you think that they should have the right to haul you away to foreign soil, to torture and degrade you, humiliate you? That's the next step. If we allow this, then America has been debased to a police state.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes. It might have prevented that specific incident while further reinforcing the conviction that Americans are evil infidels and strengthening the resolve to attack at another time.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A not so hypothetical answer....We knew about the possibility....Condi Rice and the boosh administration also knew about the possibility.

    Why did they ignore the information?

  • 1 decade ago

    hell no im all for torture. they are terrorists! not people of our country, why do they deserve our rights? THEY DONT

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.