Can we 'Justify' Torture?

[Riprorin]

Jesus was without sin. He was competely blameless.

 

[Red Dawn]

N/M wrong thread

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Jesus was without sin. He was competely blameless.

I don't recall him sacrificing someone else to save us from our sins though. Therefore I know what Jesus is supposed to have done, but I don't feel qualified to claim his position on torture as a form of interrogation.

Anyone?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I think that it would be immoral to let thousands die rather than causing discomfort to one.

For thousands? What about one thousand? One hundred? Ten? What if you could save one life by torturing another?

What if a known child molester/killer abductes a child. His brother knows where he is but won't tell authorities. Time is of the essence because in the past the he kills within 24 hrs and the clock is ticking.

In this scenario, I would exert mental and/or physical discomfort save a life.

How much discomfort, Rip? Break a thumb? Cut it off? Cut off a hand? An arm?

Where is the line drawn as to how much discomfort is acceptable?

You posted the UN defintion of torture. It draws the line at "severe pain or suffering".

Just wondering: If incarcerating someone causes him severe mental pain or suffering, should we let him go?

Where would you draw the line, Rip?

I figure there are 3 possible reasons for your refusal to answer...

[*] You wouldn't draw a line, and you don't want people to know it.
[*] You actually don't condone torture, but you're doing what you normally do...saying things to get people to think you're a dick. (that's kind of weird, but you seem to enjoy doing it)
[*] This simple question has you stumped.

Which one is it, Rip?

Give me a scenario.

I'm inclined to say 'no', because I'm asking in general, not under specific examples. But I won't, instead let's just use your 'child molester/brother' scenario from above. Where would you draw the line and why?

I would apply the minimum level of physical or mental discomfort to extract the information.

Any maximum level of discomfort you would be willing to use?

Rip?

 

[BBond]

That's not the question, Rip. Whatever anyone chooses to believe or not believe, and as a Christian I choose to believe that Jesus did indeed die for our sins, does Jesus condone torture? Is there any specific teaching of His that can be used to define or approve torture?

And if not how can we as Christians do so? How does George Bush or Alberto Gonzalez (I'm assuming), as Christians, justify their approval of the use of torture?

We become what we do. When the Bush administration approved the use of torture we became, by definition, a nation of torturers. Can you see why the world looks at America as a hypocritical aggressor nation after what Bush has "accomplished" in Iraq?

Bush and Rove need to end the cynical use of Christianity to get votes and "starve the beast" through so-called "faith based" programs and at least ATTEMPT to live by the teachings of the Master they claim to follow.

 

[Riprorin]

Link

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Link

What have you been told about indiscriminate linking with no commentary?

The Washington Times is a rag I wouldn't even use to pick up a dog turd. Do you understand that? It is not a legitimate publication. It is owned by Moonies.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Link

Pilate whitewashed too.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I think that it would be immoral to let thousands die rather than causing discomfort to one.

For thousands? What about one thousand? One hundred? Ten? What if you could save one life by torturing another?

What if a known child molester/killer abductes a child. His brother knows where he is but won't tell authorities. Time is of the essence because in the past the he kills within 24 hrs and the clock is ticking.

In this scenario, I would exert mental and/or physical discomfort save a life.

How much discomfort, Rip? Break a thumb? Cut it off? Cut off a hand? An arm?

Where is the line drawn as to how much discomfort is acceptable?

You posted the UN defintion of torture. It draws the line at "severe pain or suffering".

Just wondering: If incarcerating someone causes him severe mental pain or suffering, should we let him go?

Where would you draw the line, Rip?

I figure there are 3 possible reasons for your refusal to answer...

[*] You wouldn't draw a line, and you don't want people to know it.
[*] You actually don't condone torture, but you're doing what you normally do...saying things to get people to think you're a dick. (that's kind of weird, but you seem to enjoy doing it)
[*] This simple question has you stumped.

Which one is it, Rip?

Give me a scenario.

I'm inclined to say 'no', because I'm asking in general, not under specific examples. But I won't, instead let's just use your 'child molester/brother' scenario from above. Where would you draw the line and why?

I would apply the minimum level of physical or mental discomfort to extract the information.

Any maximum level of discomfort you would be willing to use?

You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

Just to clarify then, there are no ethical limits to interrogation, in your opinion; anything goes.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

Just to clarify then, there are no ethical limits to interrogation, in your opinion; anything goes.

Anything, it seems, short of torturing someone to death?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

Just to clarify then, there are no ethical limits to interrogation, in your opinion; anything goes.

Anything, it seems, short of torturing someone to death?

No, if you take the statement at face value, the only reason not to kill them is that it won't work.

 

[BBond]

Thanks for that well nuanced clarification, 3CC.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard
Any maximum level of discomfort you would be willing to use?

You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

Is that where you'd draw the line then, Rip? At death?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard
Any maximum level of discomfort you would be willing to use?

You can't get much useful information out of a dead person.

Is that where you'd draw the line then, Rip? At death?

Not even a yes or no?

Why is it that the members here who are supporters/condoners of torture will drop little hints that say so, but don't have the balls to just come out and say it? Is it because deep down they know that there is something seriously wrong with anyone who does support torture?

 

[Locut0s]

Can we count this thread as torture?

 

[Locut0s]

Personally there are a few extreme cases where I could condone torture. And even here there is torture and then there is brutality. If you knew for certain the the information someone is keeping secret could save the lives of a significant number of people, no I am not going to put a number on it as this kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis, then I probably would. Again though you have to define torture. If threatening to kill the guy, or inflicting sever but non life threating pain on someone is going to definitely save the lives of hundreds of people then I would condone it, but not hapilly. I'm not going to condone skinning the guy alive though under any circumstance. And no I do not condone it for just information gathering purposes or punishment.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We know what Jesus did: He sacrificed his life and endured humiliation and torture to save humanity from their sins.

Uh, Jesus didn't die on the cross, Rip. That's just more disinformation perpetuated the Church of rome.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What if a known child molester/killer abductes a child. His brother knows where he is but won't tell authorities. Time is of the essence because in the past the he kills within 24 hrs and the clock is ticking.

In this scenario, I would exert mental and/or physical discomfort save a life.

If you want to allow torture, you need to provide a morally relevant difference between subjects that may be tortured and subjects that may not be tortured. If you cannot do so, you must either support torture in all cases or oppose it in all cases. Still waiting...

Good point.

The other problem is that the situation above is an exceptional one. How often do the good guys have enough information to capture the bad guy but not that one little extra piece of information they need to find the bomb/rescue the child that they correctly know that only the bad guy has?

Not very often. Even in the unlikely event that the good guys have enough info to get the bad guy but not enough to find the bomb, the bad guy probably doesn't have the information since terrorists typically work in isolated cells without direct knowledge of such things.

The more likely outcome of supporting torture is that the "good guys" do a sweep of the right demographic and torture some of them into a making up a good but false story.

Wouldn't it have been tempting to torture some of the group of suspected terrorists about the Maryland arsons? However, after further investigation, the perpetrator didn't turn out to be a group of terrorists, but one of their own security guards.
http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/security-news/security-crime-news0013.htm

Torture is not restricted simply because it's immoral, but also because it's inaccurate, as the government can use it to produce confessions from innocent people.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What if a known child molester/killer abductes a child. His brother knows where he is but won't tell authorities. Time is of the essence because in the past the he kills within 24 hrs and the clock is ticking.

In this scenario, I would exert mental and/or physical discomfort save a life.

If you want to allow torture, you need to provide a morally relevant difference between subjects that may be tortured and subjects that may not be tortured. If you cannot do so, you must either support torture in all cases or oppose it in all cases. Still waiting...

Good point.

The other problem is that the situation above is an exceptional one. How often do the good guys have enough information to capture the bad guy but not that one little extra piece of information they need to find the bomb/rescue the child that they correctly know that only the bad guy has?

Not very often. Even in the unlikely event that the good guys have enough info to get the bad guy but not enough to find the bomb, the bad guy probably doesn't have the information since terrorists typically work in isolated cells without direct knowledge of such things.

The more likely outcome of supporting torture is that the "good guys" do a sweep of the right demographic and torture some of them into a making up a good but false story.

Wouldn't it have been tempting to torture some of the group of suspected terrorists about the Maryland arsons? However, after further investigation, the perpetrator didn't turn out to be a group of terrorists, but one of their own security guards.
http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/security-news/security-crime-news0013.htm

Torture is not restricted simply because it's immoral, but also because it's inaccurate, as the government can use it to produce confessions from innocent people.

in comes in waves, it wouldnt surprise me that much if torture would become common tactics in the war against terrorism then 10-20 years from now. When all the bad stuff will surface historians and others will reach the same conclusion as has been widely accepted up till now, that torture provides innacurate information in most cases, people will say anything to stop being tortured, and those doing the torture will torture untill they get information that they deem acceptable. So people will hear what they want to hear.