Is torture ever justified? <POLL>

[bigalt]

If somebody has information that you can quickly verify as real or not, you can rest assured that torture will get you answers.

Can anybody possibly have any non-dramatized picture of what torture is?

Unless you're the torturer or the tortured, I can't see how we could ever have an accurate account of how it happens, and what comes out of it, since it's generally frowned upon and therefore not well documented (feel free to prove me wrong!)

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: bigalt

If somebody has information that you can quickly verify as real or not, you can rest assured that torture will get you answers.

Can anybody possibly have any non-dramatized picture of what torture is?

Unless you're the torturer or the tortured, I can't see how we could ever have an accurate account of how it happens, and what comes out of it, since it's generally frowned upon and therefore not well documented (feel free to prove me wrong!)

Torture can consist of many different things. Over the history of the world torture has been used, to gather information,
punishment, or in some cases purification. I am sure there are other reasons too.

Keep torture isn't always physical.

Example of Torture might be
Beatings
Deprivation of food and/or water
Exposure to cold or heat.
Excessive noise or light
Solitary confinement
Confinement in small areas.
Tying up the torturee in painful positions for extended periods of time.
Psychological abuse.

I can continue, but I think you can get the idea. Torture isn't always bamboo shoots under someones finger nails.

 

[StageLeft]

Can anybody possibly have any non-dramatized picture of what torture is?

Unless you're the torturer or the tortured, I can't see how we could ever have an accurate account of how it happens, and what comes out of it, since it's generally frowned upon and therefore not well documented (feel free to prove me wrong!)

What drama are you referring to? I'm saying that if you have information I can readily confirm as accurate or not (like the code to a vault), and we're next to that vault and you say you don't want to give it to me, but I have knives and other cutting instruments and various chemicals, it really won't be long before I'm in the vault.

BTW many countries have, and still do, practice it, so documentation is readily available, though finding a book on "how to break a captive" may not be something you find on amazon.com.

 

[bigalt]

Torture can consist of many different things. Over the history of the world torture has been used, to gather information,
punishment, or in some cases purification. I am sure there are other reasons too.

Keep torture isn't always physical.

yeah but, how well does it really work?

the only extensive accounts of effective torture i've read are about the inquisition (and who knows how accurate they are) where people consistently admitted to being servants of satan.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Yes, to extract information that is vital to saving lives, and/or other dire circumstances.

 

[Shockwave]

Is it justified?
Well, if you aint on my side, you damned right it is.

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Can anybody possibly have any non-dramatized picture of what torture is?

Unless you're the torturer or the tortured, I can't see how we could ever have an accurate account of how it happens, and what comes out of it, since it's generally frowned upon and therefore not well documented (feel free to prove me wrong!)

What drama are you referring to? I'm saying that if you have information I can readily confirm as accurate or not (like the code to a vault), and we're next to that vault and you say you don't want to give it to me, but I have knives and other cutting instruments and various chemicals, it really won't be long before I'm in the vault.

BTW many countries have, and still do, practice it, so documentation is readily available, though finding a book on "how to break a captive" may not be something you find on amazon.com.

(i meant drama as in how it's portrayed in literature and movies, etc.)

but ok, so say you torture the guy for the easily verifiable information, and you figure out that he doesn't know the bank vault code? give him a pat on the back, apologize, and send him away?

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: bigalt

but ok, so say you torture the guy for the easily verifiable information, and you figure out that he doesn't know the bank vault code? give him a pat on the back, apologize, and send him away?

It depends what is in the bank vault. If the code used to disarm a nuclear weapon from destroying a city is in the bank vault, then I think I would take the risk of torturing the wrong person. Its a horrible thing to contemplate, but what if you didn't take the risk and hundreds, thousands, or millions of people suffered because of it?

 

[StageLeft]

but ok, so say you torture the guy for the easily verifiable information, and you figure out that he doesn't know the bank vault code? give him a pat on the back, apologize, and send him away?

Obviously it's too late; you have to be pretty sure/positive before you torture. The more important something (like a nuke going off in the city), the less positive one would need to be prior to commencing the session.

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: bigalt

but ok, so say you torture the guy for the easily verifiable information, and you figure out that he doesn't know the bank vault code? give him a pat on the back, apologize, and send him away?

It depends what is in the bank vault. If the code used to disarm a nuclear weapon from destroying a city is in the bank vault, then I think I would take the risk of torturing the wrong person. Its a horrible thing to contemplate, but what if you didn't take the risk and hundreds, thousands, or millions of people suffered because of it?

that's all fine and good to contemplate, that one wrong guy might go down for the good of many.

but what if you are the wrong guy that they grabbed to get the info? do you still approve?


p.s. i thought you meant institutionalized torture, btw. I can see how an individual might be justified torturing someone else, but I don't want anyone to be legally supported in doing so.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Yes. There are two people that, if I ever see again, I will kill right then and there with my bare hands.

 

[43st]

When the WMD argument fell through we used the torture argument. Now we're doing exactly what Saddam did. What a mad world we live in.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bigalt

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: bigalt

but ok, so say you torture the guy for the easily verifiable information, and you figure out that he doesn't know the bank vault code? give him a pat on the back, apologize, and send him away?

It depends what is in the bank vault. If the code used to disarm a nuclear weapon from destroying a city is in the bank vault, then I think I would take the risk of torturing the wrong person. Its a horrible thing to contemplate, but what if you didn't take the risk and hundreds, thousands, or millions of people suffered because of it?

that's all fine and good to contemplate, that one wrong guy might go down for the good of many.

but what if you are the wrong guy that they grabbed to get the info? do you still approve?


p.s. i thought you meant institutionalized torture, btw. I can see how an individual might be justified torturing someone else, but I don't want anyone to be legally supported in doing so.

No decision one ever makes in life is done with all of the facts and a total knowledge of all consequences of the decision. As such we're forced to cut corners. The law does it when it convicts or acquits people. Some cases are stronger than others, but in all cases there is some corner cutting. If you torture 10 guys and only one is the right guy then that's fine by me. Torture one million and only one right, that's not. I have an arbitrary line I've drawn based on a case-by-case.

When the WMD argument fell through we used the torture argument. Now we're doing exactly what Saddam did. What a mad world we live in.

Yep, much of our lives is propped up by something not as firm as we'd like to believe.

 

[Bassyhead]

i'm against it because torture puts the torturers lower than the tortuees

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
i'm against it because torture puts the torturers lower than the tortuees

Nice hypothetical, but you'd not have that opinion if your family was in the blast zone and it was known that the torture of a single guy can save millions.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Thera
When the WMD argument fell through we used the torture argument. Now we're doing exactly what Saddam did. What a mad world we live in.

show me someone ACTUALLY hooked up to a car battery by our troops?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Thera
When the WMD argument fell through we used the torture argument. Now we're doing exactly what Saddam did. What a mad world we live in.

show me someone ACTUALLY hooked up to a car battery by our troops?

Well, thera's statement was a bit too all encompassing, since only a minority of the US military has actually tortured these people, and even though no car batteries were used, there is great evidence of beatings - plus who wants to lie naked on other men!

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
No decision one ever makes in life is done with all of the facts and a total knowledge of all consequences of the decision. As such we're forced to cut corners. The law does it when it convicts or acquits people. Some cases are stronger than others, but in all cases there is some corner cutting. If you torture 10 guys and only one is the right guy then that's fine by me. Torture one million and only one right, that's not. I have an arbitrary line I've drawn based on a case-by-case.

arbitrary lines are great for dictating your own behavior, but these lines are formalized (though movable) in law, to attempt to insure that everyone has a shot at equal rights.

torture is such a fundamentally awful thing, one of the major historical justifications was that the physical suffering you were inflicting was spiritually redemptive. i at least don't believe that, and would rather concede to MK-ULTRA type methods first (at least LSD came out of that!).

 

[StageLeft]

arbitrary lines are great for dictating your own behavior, but these lines are formalized (though movable) in law, to attempt to insure that everyone has a shot at equal rights.

Well in reality the majority of people would have no qualms with oking the torture of somebody to save many others Extreme times call for extreme measures. Currently there are policies against civilian casualties, but what exactly did the allies do in WWII with bombing german cities? They did what they had to do. When you're in a position of great power it's much easier to stick to the moral high ground. When your back is against the wall your options quickly become very limited. That's exactly what drives so many to terrorism in the first place. Some people simply have no other recourse as they see it to express themselves.

 

[Vic]

No. Torture is immoral and unreliable.

Bear in mind though, corporal punishment and torture are not the same thing. Corporal punishment can not only be justified, it is sometimes necessary.

 

[Rainsford]

This reminds me of the movie Swordfish. Not that great a movie, but a good moral discussion. If it's ok to torture someone you think is guilty to save lives, how about killing them? They are a "bad guy" after all, what is their life worth to thousands of innocent people? And how about killing one or two innocent people? Sure, they aren't "bad", but how can you justify saving a few lives vs many more people who are equally as innocent? And if you are willing to do that, where do you stop? How about 100 innocent people, how about 1,000?

I know it's not the same thing, but once "saving innocent lives" starts justifying things you would otherwise think are wrong, really terrible things can be justified. One day you're torturing Achmed bin Talal who knows about a bomb at the Super Bowl, and the next your imprisoning Joe Smith for "thoughts agains the state". The problem is who do I trust to make those decisions on who's worth torturing? The fact is I don't trust anyone to make that kind of decision, do you?

 

[lokiju]

Someone has been watching to much 24. But I'd say yes if it means to save the lives of many, then without question yes.

 

[OffTopic1]

It set precedence for the enemies to torture your POW if the leader of the world doesn?t follows the rules that it helps setup.

 

[Gravity]

I liked the methods used in the "Falcon and the Snowman."

Sean Penn getting tortured seems to be a satisfying sight.

 

[chrisms]

Yes. Gary Ridgeway should be tortured for hours on end, but because of the way our system is set up, it will never happen. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, our system as a whole is good, but if it was possible I'd want special exeptions.