Can we 'Justify' Torture?

[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.

 

[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...

 

[Riprorin]

It's a judgement call.

Police and military personnel have to make them all the time.

You can have guidelines but you can't have rules for every possible scenario.

 

[IEC]

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.

Does the end justify the means?

Just a thought...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's a judgement call.

Police and military personnel have to make them all the time.

You can have guidelines but you can't have rules for every possible scenario.

So you want to give cops the power to torture based on their best judgment? I couldn't disagree any more. I've been on the wrong end of a police mistake before, yet you would give these guys the power to do anything they see fit on what amounts to a whim? I don't know any group of people I would trust less with the power to torture than police. Their jobs are extremely emotionally challenging as it is, but you want to give them the ultimate tool of emotional trauma? I simply can't agree at all.

 

[cwjerome]

Maybe if the end does justify the means then it isn't torture.

If a nuke is going to go off in NYC, and some dude is laughing about it because he knows where it's stashed, then maybe draping a flag over him isn't so bad...

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's a judgement call.

Police and military personnel have to make them all the time.

You can have guidelines but you can't have rules for every possible scenario.

So you want to give cops the power to torture based on their best judgment? I couldn't disagree any more. I've been on the wrong end of a police mistake before, yet you would give these guys the power to do anything they see fit on what amounts to a whim? I don't know any group of people I would trust less with the power to torture than police. Their jobs are extremely emotionally challenging as it is, but you want to give them the ultimate tool of emotional trauma? I simply can't agree at all.

Should we take away their guns too? That's an awful lot of power. That's why you hire good people, closely monitor them and provide good training.

There's always going to be judgement calls you can't get around that. Like I said, the guideline should be not to inflict undue mental or physical discomfort.

Obviously you treat a jaywalker differently than someone who is aiding and abetting a child killer.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Gee rip, why not let them make a judgment call that it would be best to just shoot the guy and save the public the cost of a trial and incarceration?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Should we take away their guns too? That's an awful lot of power. That's why you hire good people, closely monitor them and provide good training.

There's always going to be judgement calls you can't get around that. Like I said, the guideline should be not to inflict undue mental or physical discomfort.

Obviously you treat a jaywalker differently than someone who is aiding and abetting a child killer.

Cops carry guns because criminals carry guns. Self defense is the only purpose for those guns. Self defense is a judgment call, sure, but you have a lot better idea that someone is going to shoot you when they're pointing a gun back at you than you would have if they knows someone who knows someone who knows where the child rapist is.

Your proposed criteria of 'undue' is completely arbitrary. You can say that this is a judgment call as well, I suppose, but then you've given license to police officers to do anything they see fit with anyone on the street without any restrictions. The more 'judgment calls' one is forced to make, the more frequently the incorrect judgment will be made. Not all situations are as they appear. I'm still waiting for some morally relevant difference between suspect A and suspect B regarding why A can be tortured but B cannot be.

 

[Tab]

If we torture subject A who maybe a terrorist, we do have a possiblity that he could give us information that could save hundreds of lives. If we torture subject B who may be a shoplifter, no ones' life is in immment danger. The court system is more than capable of finding out if this person is gulity.

Though, I more than likely did something wrong here...

As for why don't terrorists just go around and blow random crap up...

Let's look at 9/11

They took down EVER SINGLE PLANE IN THE SKY our airlines suffered greatly which instantly effected buisnesses and a lot of people's personal lifes. This directely effected the economy.

All of the buinesses in the world trade center, all of their stocks went down considerably. This directly effected our economy.

The fact they are able to successfully attack the pentagon is a scary thought by itself. It shows not even a goverment building such as that is actually safe...

Stealing planes and crashing them into "special" buildings is much more effective than having a random car bomb wouldn't you say?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
If we torture subject A who maybe a terrorist, we do have a possiblity that he could give us information that could save hundreds of lives. If we torture subject B who may be a shoplifter, no ones' life is in immment danger. The court system is more than capable of finding out if this person is gulity.

OK, so I'll ask you the same question I asked Rip and he has thus far neglected to answer: how many lives must you perceive to be at risk for you to allow torture? Would you allow it for thousands? What about one thousand? One hundred? Ten? What if you could save one life by applying torture?
[/quote]Though, I more than likely did something wrong here...

As for why don't terrorists just go around and blow random crap up...

Let's look at 9/11

They took down EVER SINGLE PLANE IN THE SKY our airlines suffered greatly which instantly effected buisnesses and a lot of people's personal lifes. This directely effected the economy.

All of the buinesses in the world trade center, all of their stocks went down considerably. This directly effected our economy.

The fact they are able to successfully attack the pentagon is a scary thought by itself. It shows not even a goverment building such as that is actually safe...

Stealing planes and crashing them into "special" buildings is much more effective than having a random car bomb wouldn't you say?[/quote]
More effective at doing WHAT? If you're trying to terrorize the general populace, I submit they'd be much more scared by the random bombings. Nothing that you mentioned indicates that terror is the real goal of the perpetrators of 9/11 - you list economic reasons primarily, with a possible side of intimidation.

 

[feelingshorter]

waste of effort, i say just kill the guy

 

[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?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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

Speak for yourself. I think most of us could kill but only sick individuals or those with no moral character could torture. For instance if I were in the Armed Services I would follow orders and kill our enemy but if given an order by a superior to torture a prisoner I wouldn't obey it even if it meant that I would be imprisoned. Eventually I would get out of prison but if I were to have followed the orders I would be tormented by it my whole life.

Would you not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[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?

 

[BBond]

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?

Rip, WWJD?

 

[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?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BBond

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?

Rip, WWJD?

Hahaha! 😀

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: BBond

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?

Rip, WWJD?

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

 

[Steeplerot]

He died for his own sins not mine.