Torture should be allowed against terror suspects

As the terrorist cells we are opposing often have extreme ideological roots, it is fair to assume that the members of such organisations have been indoctrinated to a large degree to not surrender easily, or betray their side by giving away information. Torture would be effective in breaking down these individuals so that the only option they have is to yield the necessary information, whereas with normal interrogation techniques they would have succeeded in not giving anything anyway.

Do not disregard the ticking time bomb theory. In Iraq alone 11,611 fatalities have occurred just between 2000-2006 due to car bombs and things of that nature. If it is possible for lives to be saved through methods like this - what is the problem? Human Rights is an understandable argument. However, anyone who is caught doing these kinds of crimes has denounced any right they had to protection by putting other unaware and unwilling innocents in danger. Torture should not be the go-to solution, nor is it always the correct tactic, but it should be an option. Let it be regulated. Standards to be met. Perhaps, warrants to be granted for more long-term actions. Not the answer, just an option.

Firstly, torture would prove to be ineffective, as the terrorist organisations that this motion is directed against are organised in such a fashion that, unless very senior in the cell, a single individual could not confess the entire working of the organisation or know who the senior members were. The ‘footmen’ are told very little and given very simplistic instructions. Yet during the torture it may not become clear that the suspect doesn’t know much, and the temptation for the torturer is to carry on inflicting pain to see if there is anything else he might know. This could cause serious psychological and physical harm on an essentially innocent victim.

Torture can also cause anger and conflict against people in the same parties.