Can we 'Justify' Torture?

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Sorry, but IMHO, being known as a man or a nation of flexable or part-time principles does not accrue honor or esteem. Nor does it make you worthy of emulation.

Not to nitpick CycloWizard, but isn't 2! equal to 2? (1X2=2)

Hehe... != means 'not equal to', not factorial.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I don't think that it matters that you don't know what the ends are with absoute certainty. Afterall, none of us can predict the future.

When faced with a choice, taking everything you know into consideration, how would it be moral to chose the option that gives the worse consequence?

For me, the potential death of millions of innocent people would be a far worse consequence than the torture of one.

How can you claim it's moral to commit an act that you know is evil? As I've already pointed out numerous times, there is no reasonable expectation that you will improve any situation through torture. However, there is reason to believe that if you act justly, good things will come from it, even if you can't see them at the time.

How do you know good things will come of it, even if you can't see them?

The bottom line is that when you start rejecting our ability to make inferences (such as in determining the end of an action), you reject a whole lot more than the ends justifying the means. You're rejecting our ability to make any determinations about what will happen next using causality. And that's a very sad, scary place to be, because causality is fundamental to our understanding of this world.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Must be the "new math". lol

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
How do you know good things will come of it, even if you can't see them?

The bottom line is that when you start rejecting our ability to make inferences (such as in determining the end of an action), you reject a whole lot more than the ends justifying the means. You're rejecting our ability to make any determinations about what will happen next using causality. And that's a very sad, scary place to be, because causality is fundamental to our understanding of this world.

Trying to apply causality to something involving human factors is an exercise in futility. The example I gave previously is a perfect example. The problem is that humans do not behave predictably, even less so than a typical chaotic system. While you can estimate what might occur based on your experiences and intuition, you have no reasonable expectation of knowing long-term results from your actions. Free will throws a monkey wrench in the works, since people don't have to respond in any way that you can even imagine.

It's like in Jurassic Park (old, I know, but it comes to mind): the chaotician is talking about how you can't predict the actions of others. Then, Dr. Grant jumps out of the car when it's moving. "See? No one could have predicted that Dr. Grant would have jumped out of a moving vehicle." Then the woman jumps out. "Just as no one could have predicted that she would follow him. And here I am talking to myself... Not quite what I expected."

Your actions affect people in very different ways, since your actions are interpreted by them and others through their own web of experiences, beliefs, and intuition. Thus, causality might give you a rough estimation when trying to predict human behavior, but hardly any certainty to bet the farm on, which is essentially what you're doing when you try to declare torture an appropriate action.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
How do you know good things will come of it, even if you can't see them?

The bottom line is that when you start rejecting our ability to make inferences (such as in determining the end of an action), you reject a whole lot more than the ends justifying the means. You're rejecting our ability to make any determinations about what will happen next using causality. And that's a very sad, scary place to be, because causality is fundamental to our understanding of this world.

Trying to apply causality to something involving human factors is an exercise in futility. The example I gave previously is a perfect example. The problem is that humans do not behave predictably, even less so than a typical chaotic system. While you can estimate what might occur based on your experiences and intuition, you have no reasonable expectation of knowing long-term results from your actions. Free will throws a monkey wrench in the works, since people don't have to respond in any way that you can even imagine.

It's like in Jurassic Park (old, I know, but it comes to mind): the chaotician is talking about how you can't predict the actions of others. Then, Dr. Grant jumps out of the car when it's moving. "See? No one could have predicted that Dr. Grant would have jumped out of a moving vehicle." Then the woman jumps out. "Just as no one could have predicted that she would follow him. And here I am talking to myself... Not quite what I expected."

Your actions affect people in very different ways, since your actions are interpreted by them and others through their own web of experiences, beliefs, and intuition. Thus, causality might give you a rough estimation when trying to predict human behavior, but hardly any certainty to bet the farm on, which is essentially what you're doing when you try to declare torture an appropriate action.

So whether or not we use causality depends on the situation? That doesn't make sense.

This quarter in front of me is lying right there. Causality tells me that if I pick it up, it will go in my hand. But what happens if my determination fails and the world explodes as a result of me picking up that quarter? That sounds like a big deal, millions of people could die. Should I not pick up the quarter because of that?

We place trust in our determination of cause and effect so we don't have to worry about this stuff. My example is a clear hyperbole - but I'd ask you the question of what criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect. Specific criteria.

Also, "How do you know good things will come of it [not torturing the person], even if you can't see them? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
So whether or not we use causality depends on the situation? That doesn't make sense.

This quarter in front of me is lying right there. Causality tells me that if I pick it up, it will go in my hand. But what happens if my determination fails and the world explodes as a result of me picking up that quarter? That sounds like a big deal, millions of people could die. Should I not pick up the quarter because of that?

We place trust in our determination of cause and effect so we don't have to worry about this stuff. My example is a clear hyperbole - but I'd ask you the question of what criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect. Specific criteria.

Also, "How do you know good things will come of it [not torturing the person], even if you can't see them? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Now you're just making a strawman. My argument is that if you pick up a quarter, the 800 pound man who dropped it might eat you, or he might give you a check for a million bucks because he thinks you're really poor.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Tabb
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.

Maybe...need more info. If no more info is available than what's here....no.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
So whether or not we use causality depends on the situation? That doesn't make sense.

This quarter in front of me is lying right there. Causality tells me that if I pick it up, it will go in my hand. But what happens if my determination fails and the world explodes as a result of me picking up that quarter? That sounds like a big deal, millions of people could die. Should I not pick up the quarter because of that?

We place trust in our determination of cause and effect so we don't have to worry about this stuff. My example is a clear hyperbole - but I'd ask you the question of what criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect. Specific criteria.

Also, "How do you know good things will come of it [not torturing the person], even if you can't see them? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Now you're just making a strawman. My argument is that if you pick up a quarter, the 800 pound man who dropped it might eat you, or he might give you a check for a million bucks because he thinks you're really poor.

It's not a strawman. It's a legitimate question that you refuse to answer. What criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect? If you can't give me some criteria, I see no reason why we can trust the my determination of the outcome of me trying to pick up this pencil while we can't trust good information about the outcome of torture. Is there some degree of trust we need? Where does that trust come from?

And, you still refuse to make an argument as to How you know good things will come of not torturing the person, even if you can't see them

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
It's not a strawman. It's a legitimate question that you refuse to answer. What criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect? If you can't give me some criteria, I see no reason why we can trust the my determination of the outcome of me trying to pick up this pencil while we can't trust good information about the outcome of torture. Is there some degree of trust we need? Where does that trust come from?

And, you still refuse to make an argument as to How you know good things will come of not torturing the person, even if you can't see them

You didn't ask a question. You proposed a scenario that is completely segregated from what I was talking about. Picking up the quarter, if a completely isolated action, would be fine and dandy. Unfortunately, it's not a completely isolated incident if its owner happens to be bending down to pick it up at the same time. You're trying to equate hard science with human behavior. The two are simply not equal in terms of causality. This is exactly WHY you should always behave justly, since you cannot know the outcomes when it comes to human interactions.

Not torturing someone is a good/just thing. Therefore, in this case, you can always see a good come from it. In the general case, however, the good or bad may not be so obvious. I've already given numerous examples for you to consider. Maybe it simply comes down to a matter of probability - that doing the right thing will, more often than not, lead to good ends, whereas evil actions will, more often than not, have evil consequences. It's not a mathematical law, but like I said, I've given plenty of examples as to why this is the case. Since there is no certainty in either direction, what reasoning can you use to justify acting unjustly?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
It's not a strawman. It's a legitimate question that you refuse to answer. What criteria must be present for us to trust our determination of cause and effect? If you can't give me some criteria, I see no reason why we can trust the my determination of the outcome of me trying to pick up this pencil while we can't trust good information about the outcome of torture. Is there some degree of trust we need? Where does that trust come from?

And, you still refuse to make an argument as to How you know good things will come of not torturing the person, even if you can't see them

You didn't ask a question. You proposed a scenario that is completely segregated from what I was talking about. Picking up the quarter, if a completely isolated action, would be fine and dandy. Unfortunately, it's not a completely isolated incident if its owner happens to be bending down to pick it up at the same time. You're trying to equate hard science with human behavior. The two are simply not equal in terms of causality. This is exactly WHY you should always behave justly, since you cannot know the outcomes when it comes to human interactions.

Not torturing someone is a good/just thing. Therefore, in this case, you can always see a good come from it. In the general case, however, the good or bad may not be so obvious. I've already given numerous examples for you to consider. Maybe it simply comes down to a matter of probability - that doing the right thing will, more often than not, lead to good ends, whereas evil actions will, more often than not, have evil consequences. It's not a mathematical law, but like I said, I've given plenty of examples as to why this is the case. Since there is no certainty in either direction, what reasoning can you use to justify acting unjustly?

I agree with you about science and human behavior. What I had started as an attempt to drive out of your head that the ends cannot justify the means has turned into me trying to play devil's advocate when I agree with you about torture. But getting back to my original goal, there are cases where the ends justify the means - it's only when the means seem more significant than the purported ends that people have trouble with it. Let's say I'm trying to hook up with some girl at work. That's my end. My means is to buy her flowers. Surely the end justifies the means in this case - I mean, people do this everyday without any moral qualms. There are cases when the ends justify the means, there are also cases when the ends do not justify the means; it is up to us to determine when to apply that rule.

Your argument still doesn't say why not torturing someone is a good/just thing. As an isolated incident, yes. But we never have isolated incidents like that. You cannot justify unjust actions by definition, but one could argue that torturing someone in a specific circumstance is not unjust. Tell me why torture is a bad thing in all cases, isolated and nonisolated. Is it the value of that one person's human life more than the millions that might get killed?

edit: I can give you my reasons why I think it's wrong, but I'd like to see your argument first.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
He wanted to die? The goal of the terrorist was to kill millions of people, he didn't accomplish his goal...

The goal of terrorists is to sink us to their level. They can accomplish this in two ways: kill so many of us that we go insane and throw aside every value that we hold, or simply by us torturing them, thereby throwing aside every value that we hold. If they can accomplish that without killing millions of people, I'm not sure why they should even bother killing everyone.

No, there goal is for us to be afraid of them and do what they want us to do. The "terrorist" wanted do kill a lot of innocent people and instill fear in a lot of people. He didn't accomplish his goal if he told us information that lead the halt of the attack.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
No, there goal is for us to be afraid of them and do what they want us to do. The "terrorist" wanted do kill a lot of innocent people and instill fear in a lot of people. He didn't accomplish his goal if he told us information that lead the halt of the attack.

I can give you definitive proof that this is simply false. 'Terror'ists are simply a group that we label as such. There is no evidence that they really seek to strike terror in our hearts. I have mentioned this before on this forum. Think about what YOU would do if you were really interested in terrorizing us here in the US. Myself, I would blow up shopping malls, fast food restaurants, many, many small targets. Think of the insane panic that this would create. Now, think how easy this would be to pull off. The fact that it has not happened even ONCE indicates that the end goal of terrorism is NOT simply to terrorize. The agenda is quite different and I don't claim to fully know what it is, but I do know what it isn't. If I'm wrong, then terrorists are all just completely retarded and don't know the first thing about inflicting terror, which is possible, though I think somewhat less likely.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I agree with you about science and human behavior. What I had started as an attempt to drive out of your head that the ends cannot justify the means has turned into me trying to play devil's advocate when I agree with you about torture. But getting back to my original goal, there are cases where the ends justify the means - it's only when the means seem more significant than the purported ends that people have trouble with it. Let's say I'm trying to hook up with some girl at work. That's my end. My means is to buy her flowers. Surely the end justifies the means in this case - I mean, people do this everyday without any moral qualms. There are cases when the ends justify the means, there are also cases when the ends do not justify the means; it is up to us to determine when to apply that rule.

I think you're confusing something: when someone says the end cannot justify the means, they're typically talking about ethically or logically. In your example, I don't see how there are any moral or ethical objections to buying someone flowers, so this means needs no justification. Or, I totally missed what you were talking about.

Your argument still doesn't say why not torturing someone is a good/just thing. As an isolated incident, yes. But we never have isolated incidents like that. You cannot justify unjust actions by definition, but one could argue that torturing someone in a specific circumstance is not unjust. Tell me why torture is a bad thing in all cases, isolated and nonisolated. Is it the value of that one person's human life more than the millions that might get killed?

I didn't know I needed to state why torture is neither good nor just. I can think of many different levels to approach this one from - I'll go with legal, ethical, and intellectual for starters.

Legally, as I mentioned before, I'd imagine it qualifies as 'cruel and unusual punishment', which is unconstitutional. There are also any number of inevitable legal scenarios that would develop should torture become tolerated, legal, or even commonplace. As I think you mentioned before, what criteria could be used to decide who may or may not be tortured? How far may torture be taken before it's unacceptable? What is the goal of torture in a legal sense? I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine anyone would be hard pressed to present a legally justified answer to any of these questions that would come out in favor of allowing or legalizing torture.

If you want, I can go further, but pretty sure dinner's burning as we speak.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
do you support using torture as a method for police to interrogate suspects?

Generally, no, but let's say a known child killer has abducted a child. His brother knows where he is but he refuses to tell police. Would I object strongly if the police exerted some mental or physical discomfort to get the information out of him?

Not really.

There was actually a recent episode of Boston Legal which dealt with a case like this.

 

[Stunt]

Hey Tabb, i want you to finish your sentance in your topic summary.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
do you support using torture as a method for police to interrogate suspects?

Generally, no, but let's say a known child killer has abducted a child. His brother knows where he is but he refuses to tell police. Would I object strongly if the police exerted some mental or physical discomfort to get the information out of him?

Not really.

There was actually a recent episode of Boston Legal which dealt with a case like this.

ok, so who decides when a person gets tortured and when not and by what rules?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
No, there goal is for us to be afraid of them and do what they want us to do. The "terrorist" wanted do kill a lot of innocent people and instill fear in a lot of people. He didn't accomplish his goal if he told us information that lead the halt of the attack.

I can give you definitive proof that this is simply false. 'Terror'ists are simply a group that we label as such. There is no evidence that they really seek to strike terror in our hearts. I have mentioned this before on this forum. Think about what YOU would do if you were really interested in terrorizing us here in the US. Myself, I would blow up shopping malls, fast food restaurants, many, many small targets. Think of the insane panic that this would create. Now, think how easy this would be to pull off. The fact that it has not happened even ONCE indicates that the end goal of terrorism is NOT simply to terrorize. The agenda is quite different and I don't claim to fully know what it is, but I do know what it isn't. If I'm wrong, then terrorists are all just completely retarded and don't know the first thing about inflicting terror, which is possible, though I think somewhat less likely.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I agree with you about science and human behavior. What I had started as an attempt to drive out of your head that the ends cannot justify the means has turned into me trying to play devil's advocate when I agree with you about torture. But getting back to my original goal, there are cases where the ends justify the means - it's only when the means seem more significant than the purported ends that people have trouble with it. Let's say I'm trying to hook up with some girl at work. That's my end. My means is to buy her flowers. Surely the end justifies the means in this case - I mean, people do this everyday without any moral qualms. There are cases when the ends justify the means, there are also cases when the ends do not justify the means; it is up to us to determine when to apply that rule.

I think you're confusing something: when someone says the end cannot justify the means, they're typically talking about ethically or logically. In your example, I don't see how there are any moral or ethical objections to buying someone flowers, so this means needs no justification. Or, I totally missed what you were talking about.

What I'm trying to say is that people only rail against "ends justifying the means" when they are faced with a significant moral dilemma, such as torture. But we make decisions every day by considering the how good the consequences of those decisions are - like buying flowers, or talking to the girl's best friend behind her back. These are just a few of the times that we consider the ends of our actions, there are many many more. The times we are faced with moral dilemmas are cases when considering only the ends of our actions fail, and we must find other ways to arrive at a decision. That is to say - only when the means seem as significant as the ends to people jump up and say "the ends cannot justify the means", yet they use this maxim everyday in their lives when the means seem insignificant in relation to the ends.

That is why I say that there are cases when we can arrive at decisions using this maxim, and there are also cases where this maxim fails.

Your argument still doesn't say why not torturing someone is a good/just thing. As an isolated incident, yes. But we never have isolated incidents like that. You cannot justify unjust actions by definition, but one could argue that torturing someone in a specific circumstance is not unjust. Tell me why torture is a bad thing in all cases, isolated and nonisolated. Is it the value of that one person's human life more than the millions that might get killed?

I didn't know I needed to state why torture is neither good nor just. I can think of many different levels to approach this one from - I'll go with legal, ethical, and intellectual for starters.

Legally, as I mentioned before, I'd imagine it qualifies as 'cruel and unusual punishment', which is unconstitutional. There are also any number of inevitable legal scenarios that would develop should torture become tolerated, legal, or even commonplace. As I think you mentioned before, what criteria could be used to decide who may or may not be tortured? How far may torture be taken before it's unacceptable? What is the goal of torture in a legal sense? I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine anyone would be hard pressed to present a legally justified answer to any of these questions that would come out in favor of allowing or legalizing torture.

If you want, I can go further, but pretty sure dinner's burning as we speak.

Legality is irrelevent to what is morally correct - our morals determine what is legal, not the other way around. Can you give me a moral argument, or ethical argument for why torture is always wrong?

(If you're stuck I can give you mine).

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
do you support using torture as a method for police to interrogate suspects?

Generally, no, but let's say a known child killer has abducted a child. His brother knows where he is but he refuses to tell police. Would I object strongly if the police exerted some mental or physical discomfort to get the information out of him?

Not really.

There was actually a recent episode of Boston Legal which dealt with a case like this.

ok, so who decides when a person gets tortured and when not and by what rules?

The use of mental or physical discomfort would have to be on a case by case basis. I don't think that you can have hard and fast rules other that to say that "undo" pressure should never be used. Afterall, we can't even define what "torture" is.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
No, there goal is for us to be afraid of them and do what they want us to do. The "terrorist" wanted do kill a lot of innocent people and instill fear in a lot of people. He didn't accomplish his goal if he told us information that lead the halt of the attack.

I can give you definitive proof that this is simply false. 'Terror'ists are simply a group that we label as such. There is no evidence that they really seek to strike terror in our hearts. I have mentioned this before on this forum. Think about what YOU would do if you were really interested in terrorizing us here in the US. Myself, I would blow up shopping malls, fast food restaurants, many, many small targets. Think of the insane panic that this would create. Now, think how easy this would be to pull off. The fact that it has not happened even ONCE indicates that the end goal of terrorism is NOT simply to terrorize. The agenda is quite different and I don't claim to fully know what it is, but I do know what it isn't. If I'm wrong, then terrorists are all just completely retarded and don't know the first thing about inflicting terror, which is possible, though I think somewhat less likely.

No evidence? What do you think groups such as AQ are trying to do? There objective as I see it, is to get us out of the middle east. They're showing us that we are not safe, they are terrorizing us.

If they are not terrorizing us what are they doing?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
What I'm trying to say is that people only rail against "ends justifying the means" when they are faced with a significant moral dilemma, such as torture. But we make decisions every day by considering the how good the consequences of those decisions are - like buying flowers, or talking to the girl's best friend behind her back. These are just a few of the times that we consider the ends of our actions, there are many many more. The times we are faced with moral dilemmas are cases when considering only the ends of our actions fail, and we must find other ways to arrive at a decision. That is to say - only when the means seem as significant as the ends to people jump up and say "the ends cannot justify the means", yet they use this maxim everyday in their lives when the means seem insignificant in relation to the ends.

That is why I say that there are cases when we can arrive at decisions using this maxim, and there are also cases where this maxim fails.

Simply because people act contrary to the maxim doesn't mean the maxim fails. People act in unethical manners on a daily basis - every person, in some manner or another. People don't always (read: hardly ever) consider the ethical concerns related to their actions, much less care what ethics might dictate regarding their behavior. This cannot, however, lessen the unethical nature of these acts. As I said before, it only comes up when ethical/moral judgments are involved, since other means require no justification. Why would I try to justify walking north instead of south? After all, if I go 10,000 miles in either direction, I'll end up in the same place (after freezing my arse off).

Legality is irrelevent to what is morally correct - our morals determine what is legal, not the other way around. Can you give me a moral argument, or ethical argument for why torture is always wrong?

(If you're stuck I can give you mine).

I definitely agree that legality is completely irrelevant when deciding the morality of a situation. Still, it must be considered in the current discussion since we're essentially debating the possibility of legalized torture. I would argue that torture is always wrong because it dehumanizes the subject, stripping him of dignity. It has long-lasting physical and emotional effects, all of which are negative. It strips the subject of all rights, putting them below animals in our own society where even animals are protected from such behavior. The simplest answer is that it removes all protection of rights - natural, legal, or otherwise - from the subject. Common motives (intimidation, hatred/revenge) are also an indicator that the action itself is immoral/unethical, even if used for extraction of information. The results of torture are likely to be worse than the act itself, stirring hatred and continued violence against the perpetrators, creating a cycle of violence.

Feel free to share yours, too. I hadn't really previously thought about reasons why it's wrong, since I think everyone here would agree that the action itself is wrong, even if they support its use in certain circumstances.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
No evidence? What do you think groups such as AQ are trying to do? There objective as I see it, is to get us out of the middle east. They're showing us that we are not safe, they are terrorizing us.

If they are not terrorizing us what are they doing?

You're simply assuming the solution that has been handed to you. If they wanted to show us that we're not safe, why aren't they doing the things I listed above? I didn't go to any terrorist training camp, but I could do all of these things singlehandedly. It took me about two minutes to come up with those ideas - do you really think they are so simple-minded that they couldn't do likewise? 'Terrorist' is a convenient title for anyone who opposes the US with violence anywhere in the world today. As I stated before, it's clear that it's not a very apt title. I would argue that these guys are either trying to be famous or trying to drag the US down to their level, thereby showing the rest of the world how despicable we really are. We try to put ourselves on a pedastal from which we can dictate morality to the rest of the world, yet we would so quickly abandon those morals when it's convenient. Their end goal may indeed be to get us out of the Middle East, but their real weapon is NOT terror.

 

[Tab]

Using a weapon such as Sarin Nerve gas is much more scary than a simple firearm...

I don't think it would be that easy to do, not to mention. It would be pretty suicidal, you'd have a lot of people looking for you. You'd get your ass handed to you on a platter pretty damn quick.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Using a weapon such as Sarin Nerve gas is much more scary than a simple firearm...

I don't think it would be that easy to do, not to mention. It would be pretty suicidal, you'd have a lot of people looking for you. You'd get your ass handed to you on a platter pretty damn quick.

How long would it take me to blow up a mall? I could do it and be back here in 20 minutes, assuming I can find a car on my street that doesn't have The Club® on the steering wheel. After all, I can stop on the way at Home Depot and get everything I need. If I think that's too suspicious, I'll just go to Target or a grocery store. Maybe I'm weird because I have a lot of knowledge of both chemicals and cars, but any high schooler can build a bomb (not that I know from experience...) before he takes his first chemistry class. Doing something powerful enough to take out a mall is a little more complicated, but I'd be willing to bet that if you spent about 10 minutes on Google you could find out exactly what you'd have to do. Why does it being suicidal have anything to do with it? So I can only take out one mall - there are ZILLIONS of terrorists out there, correct? If Muslims really thought they were going to heaven for suicide bombings and terror was their goal, there wouldn't be a soft target still standing in the US.

 

[Boze]

Torture is not actually the best method to extract information.

One of the captains (captain here being an O-6, otherwise known as a "colonel" in other armed forces) here at Makalapa Dental Clinic in Pearl Harbor was previously stationed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was his experience there that 'a happy terrorist is talkative terrorist'. He spent a total of three years stationed there and was present for several interrogations. Psychological studies conducted by the U.S. Navy also back up his theory that torture isn't the most effective information extraction technique, and can in fact harden the terrorist to resist even more.

 

[mhillary]

No, you cannot justify torture

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
do you support using torture as a method for police to interrogate suspects?

Generally, no, but let's say a known child killer has abducted a child. His brother knows where he is but he refuses to tell police. Would I object strongly if the police exerted some mental or physical discomfort to get the information out of him?

Not really.

There was actually a recent episode of Boston Legal which dealt with a case like this.

ok, so who decides when a person gets tortured and when not and by what rules?

The use of mental or physical discomfort would have to be on a case by case basis. I don't think that you can have hard and fast rules other that to say that "undo" pressure should never be used. Afterall, we can't even define what "torture" is.

so if there are no rules on when torture would be used then how can you prevent people from abusing it?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Boze
Torture is not actually the best method to extract information.

One of the captains (captain here being an O-6, otherwise known as a "colonel" in other armed forces) here at Makalapa Dental Clinic in Pearl Harbor was previously stationed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was his experience there that 'a happy terrorist is talkative terrorist'. He spent a total of three years stationed there and was present for several interrogations. Psychological studies conducted by the U.S. Navy also back up his theory that torture isn't the most effective information extraction technique, and can in fact harden the terrorist to resist even more.

very interesting