There has to be some TORTURE situations that are JUSTIFIED

Originally posted by space cadet


I see that I have chosen the very unpopular side of this matter, I would like to say that I am a veteran of sorts, I grew up during the veitnam war and the turbulance of those times and now, all I wanted to be when I grew up was a tree hugger and hippie. I still think the world needs more love and that peace is the answer, and what I truly wish for this world is just that, lots of love and peace, and understanding and tolerance of each other. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of this world. The cold hard facts are that war has been going on since the begining of human civilization, and it continues and will continue, no country will ever 'win' or 'lose', it is a game that will continue playing no matter what, but the amount of lives saved by strategy, matters. There are times that torture may be the only strategy to save many lives, and yes it should be regulated as to how the torture is applied, but, torture does not end in the loss of life, it is to gain information, so no one dies and many get saved. Now I am going to go hug a tree.

edit on 23-10-2010 by space cadet because: (no reason given)

it is people who think like this that drum for war or cause war, the war leads to innocent people dieing or having their lives destroyed, which leads to hate against those that did it, which leads to radicalism, which leads to revenge, which leads to more war and more hate and more radicals and more war and hate, maybe it might stop when there is nobody left.

how do we stop this cycle or how do we attempt to be an example that will lead to the end of the cycle or at the very least making it less common? hugging trees is not the answer, but then neither is creating more hate.

Originally posted by MoreFunky85
should we be "caring and considerate" of his needs while he is being detained?

...yes... its the right thing to do...

Originally posted by MoreFunky85
Why shouldn't we torture this guy to get the proper information we need?

...the only thing torture accomplishes is destroying the integrity of the torturer...

Originally posted by MoreFunky85
But if this is someone who we knew for sure was the perpetrator, why would you be so concerned about his well being?

...it has nothing to do with the perpetrator... its about having integrity...

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by MoreFunky85

 

Regulation of torture methods may be a neccesity, but should be regulated within the military corps, without public approval or disapproval.

Quite a delusional statement unless you're a 'Fascist' wanting a 'Fascist' society without absolutely no insight or saying whatsoever over the modus operandi and methods done by the Gestapo torturers in your name.

I really hope that war never comes to the city where you live and that your neigbourhood never gets invaded, or that anyone of your innocent family members are tortured by the secret police/Intelligence contractors because of false Intel provided by morally corrupt neighbours who wanted to erase the business competition to their businesses - in your suburb market area!

(Which actually happened in Iraq on several occasions after the invasion when people got arrested on false Intel and were sent to Abu Ghraib's torture cells)

Anyone who justifies torture is IMHO sick in the head and a depraved human being - even more so, a shame for the human race!

reply to post by mobiusmale


well the idea is you treat people humanely enough that nobody would ever want to do such a thing to begin with.
but if it happened, then i suppose i would rely on the experts who were trained for such things and have them try to defuse the bomb. i would trust their expertise a lot more than the words of a madman who has just been tortured into giving a code which may well be a lie.

i would evacuate the city regardless of the end outcome instantly.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


How would you proceed in the scenario I presented?

Which shows more integrity, or humanity? Is there more integrity in doing whatever it takes...or at least making some kind of an attempt (whether or not it ends up a successful attempt) to save a few million people?

Or would a person's integrity and humanity be more intact because he/she applied no pressure on an individual - which or may not help - and then millions died?

What is your answer to this? I am curious.

reply to post by mobiusmale


...since your scenario has been a propagandized fear for decades, i'm inclined to ask if we have a computer program already in place designed soley for that possibility - and - if we dont, we should have and would have if we didnt spend trillions on invading other countries for their natural resources...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Thanks for your thoughtful response. But, it seems to me that you haven't addressed yourself to the moral dilema being raised in the "what if"?

The KGB would agree with you, OP.

The only knowledge I have of torture is that it is used and always has been. I know that it is a strategy. I know that many times it works in revealing truth that saves lives.

I can imagine simple and complex reasons I would torture someone. Example: if someone had a loved on held hostage, and I gained access to an accomplice of that kidnap, every other attempt failed at gaining a location of my loved one, I would torture that person until they revealed that information to me. It is a stategy.

I am not saying it should be common practice, I am saying it is a strategy, just like shooting a person who is the enemy, just like holding a gun on a capture will keep him in place, war is not won or lost by any other means other than strategy. I am not promoting war, I don't want war, but this world has always had it, and there is no end of it in sight. War is never pretty.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

How would you proceed in the scenario I presented?

Which shows more integrity, or humanity? Is there more integrity in doing whatever it takes...or at least making some kind of an attempt (whether or not it ends up a successful attempt) to save a few million people?

Or would a person's integrity and humanity be more intact because he/she applied no pressure on an individual - which or may not help - and then millions died?

What is your answer to this? I am curious.

This is a false dilemma. It would be immoral to torture the individual in this scenario. It would not be immoral to interrogate this individual (and I mean NON TORTURE interrogation). You implying that by "not torturing" is the same as "not applying any pressure" is absurd.

Where would this individual's "integrity" be if through torture he received false information and then acted on it? It's a catch-22, you imply that torture is somehow "more likely" than other techniques to get information from a captive quickly without providing any primary source documentation or research that suggests this is true.

If he is intentionally using a method that is very likely to produce bad intelligence in order to "save" millions of people, then it can only be assumed that he is either immoral or incompetent, and if it's the former I'd definitely argue that he had no integrity using that situation as an EXCUSE to torture.

Torture is not the most effective method of getting actionable intelligence from a captive, therefore it would be absolutely insane to use torture in a situation like the on you describe.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

well the idea is you treat people humanely enough that nobody would ever want to do such a thing to begin with.
but if it happened, then i suppose i would rely on the experts who were trained for such things and have them try to defuse the bomb. i would trust their expertise a lot more than the words of a madman who has just been tortured into giving a code which may well be a lie.

i would evacuate the city regardless of the end outcome instantly.

edit on 23-10-2010 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

This is reasonable...except in the scenario presented, we do not know what city the bomb is located in...so we do not know what city to evacuate...and since we don't know where the bomb is we can't employ our expert bomb squad.

So, now what?

Originally posted by MoreFunky85
reply to post by oozyism

 

Im talking about Bin Laden and legitimate terrorists. I dont agree with the torture of innocents.

who are you to tell who is or isnt a terrorist

and

who are you to tell us what a terrorist is

anyone could be a terrorist, even you ...

Originally posted by space cadet
The only knowledge I have of torture is that it is used and always has been. I know that it is a strategy. I know that many times it works in revealing truth that saves lives.

I can imagine simple and complex reasons I would torture someone. Example: if someone had a loved on held hostage, and I gained access to an accomplice of that kidnap, every other attempt failed at gaining a location of my loved one, I would torture that person until they revealed that information to me. It is a stategy.

I am not saying it should be common practice, I am saying it is a strategy, just like shooting a person who is the enemy, just like holding a gun on a capture will keep him in place, war is not won or lost by any other means other than strategy. I am not promoting war, I don't want war, but this world has always had it, and there is no end of it in sight. War is never pretty.

Yes because the enlightened government would never use this for evil, would never use this as a mean to extract political confessions and eliminate martyrs. Any government allowed to torture FOR ANY REASON will use that reason to extend their right to torture others beyond the original scope, any given president will just ask his attorney general to justify it and swear up and down that "I think it's legal" and it's a go, then when it's determined it was in fact illegal, hell, the attorney general is immune because he was acting in good conscious, and the president was obviously just going off of his attorney's legal advice.

Ya, awesome. This sounds like it will work despite the fact that torture is less effective than other interrogation techniques at producing actionable and true intelligence, and that in a real # hit the fan situation the last thing you need is the material witness lying to stop getting tortured and you acting on the info he gave you.

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

well the idea is you treat people humanely enough that nobody would ever want to do such a thing to begin with.
but if it happened, then i suppose i would rely on the experts who were trained for such things and have them try to defuse the bomb. i would trust their expertise a lot more than the words of a madman who has just been tortured into giving a code which may well be a lie.

i would evacuate the city regardless of the end outcome instantly.

edit on 23-10-2010 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

This is reasonable...except in the scenario presented, we do not know what city the bomb is located in...so we do not know what city to evacuate...and since we don't know where the bomb is we can't employ our expert bomb squad.

So, now what?

Since torture is likely to give you FALSE INTELLIGENCE, that's surely not on the #ing table in a situation like this. You'd be putting everyone at risk for your #ty belief that "torture" gets true answers. Have you ever tortured anybody? How effective was it? If you don't know then stfu pretending that it's somehow the "last available method."

A method likely to produce false intelligence where false intelligence will kill lots of people seems absolutely idiotic to use as a last resort.

Also, let's say you torture the guy, it doesn't work just like all the other methods didn't? What now, start cutting off his arms and legs? Capture his family and start raping his wife, kill his children in front of him? How far do you take it for the "greater good"?

No trial, no due process of the law, we think you know so we're cutting your arms off unless you tell us and OH WELL if we find out later that you weren't even a party and that's why you couldn't talk?

reply to post by sremmos


Okay, and I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong. There are many forms and methods of interrogation that yield very good results...very likely better results Any police detective will tell you that...and be able to demonstrate it.

However, if all of these other methods of persuasion have failed (and remember that many of them require a great deal of patience and time), and we are now down to the last couple of minutes before a mushroom cloud sprouts...would you still refuse to try torture to get the information needed?

The OP has asked the question if torture is ever, under any circumstance, justified. That is what I am trying to drill down to with this scenario.

In my mind, justification misses the point. Sure, on some primitive emotional level I would probably take some kind of sick pleasure in knowing that people like Bin Laden or Hitler would be made to experience the suffering they have inflicted on others, and that side of me might come up with all kinds of reasons why it's not really as bad as others might think.

But another side of me is keenly aware that this system, like all of our systems, will be subject to failure or abuse, and sooner or later, something really horrible is going to happen to someone who doesn't deserve it, and eventually I will know about it, maybe even get to see it, and it will be impossible to undo. There will be consequences that I am unwilling to live with. So I can't see myself supporting torture, "justified" or not.

I agree. Many of the things called 'torture' have saved lives already. That's a proven fact. My question is this:

If shooting an enemy combatant in the face on a battle field, or collateral damage to an innocent civilian caused by a misguided missile is legal under international law....

then what is so wrong about 'simulating drowning' on an enemy combatant in order to save civilian lives?

Iraqi civilians aren't the only civilians that matter and American soldiers aren't the only ones killing people for their cause.

If running water over the face of a terrorist, caught trying to kill on the battle field, will save American civilian lives then it is just to run water over that person's face to simulate drowning.

I know this is not representative of EVERY one of the things our intelligence community and military has done. I'm just saying there are times when tactics like these are just. These times might be the minority, but they exist.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by sremmos

 

Okay, and I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong. There are many forms and methods of interrogation that yield very good results...very likely better results Any police detective will tell you that...and be able to demonstrate it.

However, if all of these other methods of persuasion have failed (and remember that many of them require a great deal of patience and time), and we are now down to the last couple of minutes before a mushroom cloud sprouts...would you still refuse to try torture to get the information needed?

The OP has asked the question if torture is ever, under any circumstance, justified. That is what I am trying to drill down to with this scenario.

If bombs are planted and about to detonate in a matter of minutes you've already lost the game because any attempt at evacuation would cause more death (stampeding, yes, humans do it too) and it would already be too late to defuse the bomb. Frankly, if ALL OTHER METHODS fail, it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that torture will be successful.

I would not torture in this situation because it would be intentionally using one of the least reliable methods of interrogation that was originally used specifically to garner false confession from dissidents by monarchs, and not "emergency intelligence." You would have to be an idiot to use a technique designed to create false confessions as a last time-restricted resort to getting actionable intelligence.

This would be the equivalent of going "ok guys we got 10 minutes left and i have a technique, i call it torture, it works 5% of the time, let's torture him and then act on whatever he says!"

What you do is you use the most reliable methods possible until the last minute, that is exerting pressure to the last second, some things are unavoidable.

Accept that some things cannot be stopped because it is true, try your hardest to stop these sorts of things anyway, but do not sacrifice your basic humanity for a method that is widely known as UNRELIABLE in a "we need to get ACCURATE intelligence RIGHT NOW" kind of situation, it would be absolutely silly to torture someone in the event that no other method worked because, honestly, our interrogation methods are so good that if they get through that effectively, torture is even more likely to bring false intelligence (they will lie to end the torture instead of betray their group if they make it all the way to the "last minute" without giving any info to anyone).

Intentionally using an unreliable interrogation technique in a situation where people are going to die if you are wrong is absolutely immoral and is a sign that you would just want to "appear" like you did all that you could, rather than ACTUALLY do all that you could. If you fail, you fail, but you sure as # didn't "stop applying pressure" just because you "didn't torture."

Bad things happen will happen in this world regardless of if you torture people, not everything can be stopped by giving the government unlimited power to go to any length to get information.

reply to post by MoreFunky85

MoreFunky85,

I hear you and your motivation is probably the reason people actually get tortured......on an individual level it might s*ck to get tortured but you have the think about the greater picture.

But you seriously need to ask yourself "If I am willing to allow torture, am I ready to accept being tortured?"

Motivation and common interest aside, if you ever got into a position that somebody is going to fry your nuts, are you ready to say that:" Okay, I am willing to accept this"....

If the answer is "yes" then the answer to you question "There has to be some TORTURE situations that are JUSTIFIED?" is yes!!!

Peace (and wisdom)