Interrogation/Torture vs. Information

I was listening to talk radio today and they were debating the subject of Interrogation/Torture tactics and if it would be justifiable if it saved many lives. I was curious about everyone’s views on this. Is it ok to Torture a terrorist for information that could save hundreds of lives?

I think the torture of terrorists would be completely acceptable if it indeed worked to extract information that could save innocent lives. However, there's some controversy as to whether it can provide useful information at all.

Aye.

If you know they were involved for definate, i don't see a problem with it. It's their own fault for trying to kill people.

They won't talk if you don't inflict pain upon them, asking questions will reveal nothing, that's why torture has been around for centuries, not because we're sick and twisted, just because it brings results.

I don't believe so, no.

From a completely pragmatic point of view, specially if we're talking about Al Qaeda, individual terrorists generally know very, very little about future plans, leadership decisions, etc etc. More often than not, I'd think "we" already know as much as the average Joe Terrorist knows. Furthermore we're talking about a population who simply do not fear death - torture and pain are not really as great a threat as we might think.

Leaders of terrorist groups might be a different case...sure, torture might help save others...but it could also push that leader into "Martyr for our cause" status, and increase anti-Western sentiment as well as it being great PR for recruitment.

That being said, it seems as if the concept of Torture As Prevention is treating the symptom, not the cause; it doesn't touch on the real issues to any great extent.

And (oh, flame away. Like you didn't expect this from me? ) on a personal level, it's never ok to torture another. If we're meant try and lead by example, that's a lousy example to follow, and it just perpetuates the cycle. Because we cannot guarantee other lives would be saved (ie, the ends justifies the means), it may well be interpreted as cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

Well we have led by example by such ways as the Geneva convention and the convention against torture for years now and remember all those contractors who were tortured and decapitated last year?

Bet they thought "I'm glad that we're leading by example, maybe after they torture and mutilate enough of us they'll feel bad about it later in life"

Some things sound good and moral in theory but in practice they just don't work.

I'm with Tinkleflower. (and the Geneva Conventions) on this. Call me a softie or a tulip-walker but I could never advocate torture of another human being.

According to the Thrid Geneva Convention:
(Art 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Art. 32. A protected persons shall not be have done to them anything of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment.

In response to that, i ask...

What about your basic right to life?

Should the people who attempt to unjustly take it be provided with such protection?

Surely they revoked their rights when they attempted to take others by such disgusting means?

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
Bet they thought "I'm glad that we're leading by example, maybe after they torture and mutilate enough of us they'll feel bad about it later in life"

And the torture wouldn't have hurt so much if we practiced it, too?

That's the thing. Being an example, doesn't mean everyone will necessarily follow. If you're 'being a good example' just to get people to follow and you'll give it up when they don't, then you're not a very good example.

We don't torture people (supposedly) because it's NOT the honorable thing to do. Giving up on our standards just makes us as bad as they are, it doesn't make anything better.

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
What about your basic right to life?

Should the people who attempt to unjustly take it be provided with such protection?

Yes. If I had the opportunity to defend myself from getting killed, I would use it. But after the fact, the threat is gone and any action on them would be revenge.

Surely they revoked their rights when they attempted to take others by such disgusting means?

Nope.

But it would not be revenge if it provided the opportunity to prevent others from such fate.

If it was to prevent that person, or his contacts from future attacks then it would not be deemed as revenge but infact as you said... protection.

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
If it was to prevent that person, or his contacts from future attacks then it would not be deemed as revenge but infact as you said... protection.

And therein lies one of the problems - exactly how is it decided that Terrorist #1 knows enough to prevent the loss of life? Do we just torture every suspect?

I am not saying torture should be the way of things by any means. To deny that it exists in the UK is niave, of course it happens.

I am glad we follow the conventions, as i am against torture in most circumstances, it's disgusting to say the least.

But when faced with a man who does not fear death, who intends to murder many, sometimes i believe, drastic measures must be taken. But again, we will never know if torture is used or not for sure, then again, from some of the statements made recently, i think the answer is pretty obvious.

We don't know Tinkle,

However i would think it is safe to say most would require several people to carry out an attack. But not always.

You would need to have knowledge of explosives, and financial backing. By explosives i mean to being able to identify the chemicals needed and compose them correctly, in addition to having knowledge of basic electronics to create trigger.

It's not right, i know it isn't, but sometimes extreme methods may bring results. It's up to the person with the power to decide what happens.

In making the decision to use torture, you don't know what results you might get. Does the prisoner really have the information? We don't know. IF he has the information, will he release it under torture, maybe not. Maybe he'd die before releasing it.

Therefore you have to make the decision to torture without knowing the outcome. Also, there's the chance that he doesn't even have the information. Is it ok to torture a man if he doesn't have the information? No. How do you know? You can't until you torture him. Vicious circle.

You asked for our views and that is mine. It's inhumane. It's kind of a value judgment, like the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent one, which I also agree with.

To me, it's a matter of the value I attribute to another's life. Life is too valuable to me to torture anyone. Anyone for any reason. To me, there's no wiggle room and no exception.

The pro-torture arguments are always made in a vacuum. The assumption is that the government has good intentions; that they are not just waiting for an excuse to impose these measures against the U.S population. History proves, whether you are a conspiracy theoirst or not, that governments do not have our best interests at heart. Also, the so called "ticking time bomb" scenario often used by torture advocates is a canard. Think of what would have to occur: you would have to catch the terriorist in just the right time frame, after the bomb has been planted but before it goes off, and you would have to have just the right amount of information, just enough to know that your prisoner is involved but not enough to know where he has planted the bomb. If such a bizarre scenario comes to life, and torture occurs, as it probably would, and should, there is a simple way to deal with it legally: a pardon; pardon the law enforcement agents involved, once it's proven that they had no choice. That's what pardons are there for, difficult situations, which, if legislated, could make bad law, and bad precedent. This would allow you to get the information you need without any slippery slope possibilities.If you move beyond the ticking time bomb scenario you are in a defintional nightmare; a governmental playground of the mind where everyone can classed as a potential terrorist. We also tend to forget that it is dangerous to allow the government to have what amounts to reality creating factories. If we continue to see the current detention policies in place do you honestly believe the adminstration in power at any given moment in history will not use the ablity to obtain confessions at will for political advantage? We could see new info about potential strikes against the homeland emanting from gitmo before an election, or when a President is down in the polls. There already exists an orwellian tv program, number 1 in Iraq, where prisoners are paraded before the camera, and dubious confessions, all helpful to the new regime, are spouted.

Gaining information under torture has long been viewed as pretty much useless by many countries, for the obvious reasons. As was said it's also against the Geneva convention.

Sadly the obvious reasons don't seem to be obvious enough these days.

A prime example is the US/UK use of Uzbekistan. One of the planets most brutal dictatorships, at the forefront of worldwide condemnations for its human rights abuses until the "War on Terror" when the US gave dictator Islam Karimov $500 million dollars in "aid" in return for the US setting up an airbase in the country.

The UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray complained to the UK government that both the CIA and MI6 were using intelligence gained through torture in Uzbekistan by the Uzbek government, and about the leniency being shown the dictatorship.

He was first accused of a myriad of frivolous violations of protocol (such as "drinking too convivially with locals") and when he failed to shut up about the use of intelligence gained through torture and the hypocritical US policy in the country he was finally sacked as ambassador.


politics.guardian.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps it's the first part of your question we should consider. I'm referring to the "If" in the beginning of your question.

Let me ask you all a question. If you were being tortured, and your interrigators wanted a name, would you give up your nabor to make the pain stop? Would you give up your boss if it would make the pain stop? etc.

Wouldn't you reason with yourself that they would find out eventually that it was not so and that they were innocent?

If you then gave up someone, just to make the pain stop, what would the next innocent person do to make the pain stop? ... does anyone see where this is taking us? Are we being frightened by those who want us to give them the green light to torture?

What if we got wise, could they make us stupid? What if we got informed, could they make us ignorant?
The knowledge is out there, the information has already been extracted for you to receive.

As I posted elsewhere, if you watch the movies in this order, you will be getting information upon information upon information, meaning the first will document what the next will build ontop off.

www.mininova.org...

www.mininova.org...

www.mininova.org...



Sincerely

Cade

Originally posted by Cade
Let me ask you all a question. If you were being tortured, and your interrigators wanted a name, would you give up your nabor to make the pain stop? Would you give up your boss if it would make the pain stop? etc.

God, I hope I'm never in the position to test that. But I would say No. I would not give in simply because it would be giving in to evil in my mind.

(I realize it's easy to say that as I sit in the comfort of my office.)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Cade
Let me ask you all a question. If you were being tortured, and your interrigators wanted a name, would you give up your nabor to make the pain stop? Would you give up your boss if it would make the pain stop? etc.

God, I hope I'm never in the position to test that. But I would say No. I would not give in simply because it would be giving in to evil in my mind.

(I realize it's easy to say that as I sit in the comfort of my office.)

Well I hope that we could all be that brave too. You could test it very quickly ofcause, just burn burn yourself with a lighter and only stop when your ready to talk.

Another question to ask oneself, even IF we could withstand the pain from torture [through weeks, months, years] how can we be sure that someone being tortured right now can? Why is this relevant now you may ask? well, imagine this.
Someone in Guantanamo right now, gives up some guy he knows the name of. This guy is now being brought in for torture, he also gives up someone's name etc.
Can we sleep at night, thinking about the fact that sooner or later our name might come up, in the avalance of "confessions"...

Think about it... have you turned of the lighter yet?

I'm writing this with respect for us all, and with the hope that we will all resist the temptation of giving the green light on terror.

IF WE CANNOT EVEN RESIST THE FEAR OF TERROR AND FIGHT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, HOW COULD WE EVER RESIST THE PAIN FROM TORTURE?


Sincerely

Cade

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Cade]

I Have it!
We give them heroin for a month or two... the take it away!
Hello intelligence!