Can we 'Justify' Torture?

[Tab]

I've seen a lot of threads relating to President Bush and torture.

For example we've been sending quite a few people to forigen prisons... We've said that "terrorists" don't apply under the geneva convention as they aren't fighting for a particular country. We get to keep them locked as long as we please, and let them go however we please. They don't any wear any disgunishable uniforms.

Can torture be justified?

Lets say we know a large scale terrorist attack will happen sometime in major East Cost City. We have a 35 year old male with a family of 3 that has a normal office job and makes a above average living. We know he is somehow involved with the plot and won't cooperate at all. If we were to "convince" him that he should help us, it'd be a PR disaster if he was released back to his family.

Thats just one situation.

 

[sandorski]

No

 

[Czar]

It is a question also about where your moral limits are. Ofcorse under extreme circumstances those limits change, but there is also a big question about when that happens. For each and every person its different, same with so many things that comes down to personal opinion. What we do when we have a delema like that is that we come together and make laws, a compromise that most can agree with and the rest can accept and has to live with.

 

[MiniDoom]

I would like for UBL or zarqawi to be tortured.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I would like for UBL or zarqawi to be tortured.

as punishment or information gathering?

if as punishment, does that change anything?

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I would like for UBL or zarqawi to be tortured.

as punishment or information gathering?

if as punishment, does that change anything?

Punishment, sure would make me feel better. I think most people are in agreement that it does little/nothing for information gathering.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I would like for UBL or zarqawi to be tortured.

as punishment or information gathering?

if as punishment, does that change anything?

Punishment, sure would make me feel better. I think most people are in agreement that it does little/nothing for information gathering.

ok, it would make you feel better, apart from your emotions, would it change anything?

and more a general question, is revange the same as justice?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ultimately, you have to decide if we (US) are the good guys (defender of human rights) or just another cabal that believes the "ends justify the means" . . . regardless of what those "ends" entail.

If you stand for human rights only when it's convenient . . . then you might as well move to mainland China.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I would like for UBL or zarqawi to be tortured.

as punishment or information gathering?

if as punishment, does that change anything?

Punishment, sure would make me feel better. I think most people are in agreement that it does little/nothing for information gathering.

ok, it would make you feel better, apart from your emotions, would it change anything?

and more a general question, is revange the same as justice?

Good question. I think punishment is justice but not necessarily revenge.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Good question. I think punishment is justice but not necessarily revenge.

I agree, but if you do punishment or justice for emotional resonas I would classify it as revenge. Justice should try to stay clear of emotional feelings, we cant though shut it off because we use emotions and logic to decide what is appropriate, as the saying let the punishment fit the crime.

With OBL I just dont think any punishment is fitting. Its kinda like how eddie izzard put it out

"Paul Pot killed 1.7 million people, we cant even deal with that. We think if somebody kills someone its murder you go to prison. If you kill 10 people you go to Texas and they hit you with a brick, thats what they do. 20 people you go to a hospital, they look at you through a small window forever, and over that we cant deal with that. Somebody killed a 100.00 people and we are almost going 'Well done, well done. You killed a 100.000 people? you must get very early in the morning, I cant even go to the gym.'"

 

[ntdz]

I'm for torture for information gathering in certain circumstances (we would have to have hard evidence showing they knew info), definetly not for punishment.

 

[Riprorin]

There are certain situation where probably just about all of us would torture.

 

[NJDevil]

Wow. Fundamentalist Christians like rip saying even he would support torture, but god forbid if we try to keep old people out of poverty, that's not in the constitution!

 

[glenn1]

Wow. Fundamentalist Christians like rip saying even he would support torture, but god forbid if we try to keep old people out of poverty, that's not in the constitution!

Well, it isn't in the Constitution, but that's a seperate issue.

And personally I think if you don't even have the moral center to even be able to say that torture is wrong, I don't think you have the moral center to advance on to Constitutional issues. Our system of government pre-supposes that you understand the basic premises (all that "We hold these truths to be self evident" stuff) before you move onto more advanced material like what the proper boundaries of government are.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: glenn1
what the proper boundaries of government are.

The people will make this decision ( regarding torture and defining it)...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There are certain situation where probably just about all of us would torture.

That is not the question, the question is whether or not torture is justified. In other words, given a situation where torturing a prisoner prevents a terrorist attack (the "worst case" scenario), can we stand up and say that torturing that prisoner was justified?

Personally I'm not a big fan of justifications, because I believe there need to be certain behaviors that are not allowed no matter the circumstances. Obviously there are murky areas here (killing is wrong, but not in self defense), but the basic idea is that killing isn't wrong, murder is wrong. So we have to decide whether the circumstances of a torture situation change what we're doing by any significant amount. I don't see a lot of justification for that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: glenn1
what the proper boundaries of government are.

The people will make this decision ( regarding torture and defining it)...

I don't know, our system was not designed to set up a tyranny of the majority situation. There are many things the people are not allowed to decide for this very reason. 51% of the population can choose a president, but they can't choose to reinstitute slavery.

Our laws are pretty clear about torture for US citizens, and I don't think any majority should be allowed to overturn that. The real question is whether, morally speaking, we should extend that to other people...or do we feel that only Americans should be exempt from cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[Riprorin]

Define "torture". Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Define "torture". Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

I think torture is best defined as inflicting physical or mental pain on someone in order to accomplish something. Obviously this leaves a lot of gray area, there is a good deal of mental pain involved in being jailed at all for most people. So I guess I'd say the defining factor is that torture is a level of pain intended to severly inhibit the higher brain functions of the subject. Trying to sweat a drug dealer by leaving him sit in the interrogation room for an hour or two before questioning him is a part of the whole process, and doesn't cause any real mental or physical pain. If those two hours are spent holding his feet to hot coals, at the end of it he probably won't even know what questions he's answering.

I guess it's more of a judgement call than anything.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


I guess it's more of a judgement call than anything.

uhhh, thats what I said....

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


I guess it's more of a judgement call than anything.

uhhh, thats what I said....

Maybe I misread what you said (or made an assumption), but I'm talking about how we define torture, and I thought you were talking about defining it AND implementing it. In other words, I thought you were talking about people making the decision to justify torture after agreeing that what they were supporting was in fact torture.

Or were we arguing the same thing?

 

[Tab]

Wow, I am suprised I got this much response...

It seems a lot of us agree that in some circumstances it is justified...

Then why all the flak over Gut. Bay? He's protecting us from evil terrorists!!!

 

[her209]

Well, first you have to prove that the information obtained through means of "torture" is accurate and credible.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Lets say we know a large scale terrorist attack will happen sometime in major East Cost City. We have a 35 year old male with a family of 3 that has a normal office job and makes a above average living. We know he is somehow involved with the plot and won't cooperate at all. If we were to "convince" him that he should help us, it'd be a PR disaster if he was released back to his family.

Thats just one situation.

We don't know anything about his involvedment in the group. We don't even know if he has information that could stop the attacks.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Tabb

Lets say we know a large scale terrorist attack will happen sometime in major East Cost City. We have a 35 year old male with a family of 3 that has a normal office job and makes a above average living. We know he is somehow involved with the plot and won't cooperate at all. If we were to "convince" him that he should help us, it'd be a PR disaster if he was released back to his family.

Thats just one situation.

We don't know anything about his involvedment in the group. We don't even know if he has information that could stop the attacks.

Mmmkay... wtf is going on?