Is torture ever justified? <POLL>

[NuclearNed]

I just saw a poll over at CNN that asked this question.

In general, I am opposed to any form of abuse against an imprisoned person. But I can see circumstances where torture might be an acceptable means to get information from a person.

For example, let's say that the intelligence community knows that a devastating terrorist attack is only hours away from happening. They know this attack will be very destructive in terms of lives and property. They just happen to have a high ranking terrorist in their custody, who they are confident knows details about the attack. After intensive questioning, the detainee remains defiant. Would torture be justified in this situation?

If you think about it, this raises a lot of scary questions.

 

[remagavon]

Yes, child abusers desrive to be ripped from limb to limb.

 

[LordJezo]

If hooking up a car battery to a terrorist and giving him shock treatment during an acid bath prevents 9/11 redux, then sure!

 

[StageLeft]

Not for punishment, but for information sometimes yes.

 

[rh71]

only if you're Jack Bauer and you need information

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: remagavon
Yes, child abusers desrive to be ripped from limb to limb.

I guess I really meant torture as a means to extract information, not as a method of punishment. I will always be against it when used as punishment.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: rh71
only if you're Jack Bauer and you need information

Cheers rh71 :beer:

<-- Voted yes

 

[amcdonald]

yes.

 

[PatboyX]

I Spit On Your Grave!

 

[NuclearNed]

OK - its time for followup questions.

It seems like lots of us here (myself included) believe there are situations in which torture is a just means by which to extract information.

How dire does a situation have to be before torture is used? I would think that if a single person's life was endangered, and I could get information from a hostile person to guarantee the safety of the innocent, then it would be the right thing to do.

Also, ultimately someone has to be responsible for this sort of thing. Where does the responsibility lie? With a commanding officer? The president?

 

[azazyel]

"I am going to enjoy making you bleed....and I am going to enjoy making you enjoy it"
- Pinhead

 

[RagingBITCH]

Certain situations, yes.

If a nuclear bomb was set to go off in NYC, then I'd cut off a man's penis and make him eat it if it saved millions of lives.

How dire? That's hard to say - depends on if the person captured was some sort of military, or they were part of a terrorist plot, or they're some random joe off the street. It's impossible to put it in black and white.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
OK - its time for followup questions.

It seems like lots of us here (myself included) believe there are situations in which torture is a just means by which to extract information.

How dire does a situation have to be before torture is used? I would think that if a single person's life was endangered, and I could get information from a hostile person to guarantee the safety of the innocent, then it would be the right thing to do.

Also, ultimately someone has to be responsible for this sort of thing. Where does the responsibility lie? With a commanding officer? The president?

With whomever is in a position of power.

Few could convincingly try and argue that one person holding the code to a nuke about to kill 2 million people deserves anything but the most creative torture techniques. Torturing somebody over $500 is a bad idea (even badder is that they'd resists when faced with it!). Keeping an innocent from pain/death by harming a non-innocent is fine by me.

 

[GasX]

Touch my mother, sister, fiance or any daughters we have together and you will find out.

 

[IHYLN]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Certain situations, yes.

If a nuclear bomb was set to go off in NYC, then I'd cut off a man's penis and make him eat it if it saved millions of lives.

if you are single now you know why

 

[Armitage]

I suspect that torture is likely a very unreliable way to get accurate information.

 

[NuclearNed]

Where are the "no" people?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
I suspect that torture is likely a very unreliable way to get accurate information.

It can work well if done right.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: IHYLN

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Certain situations, yes.

If a nuclear bomb was set to go off in NYC, then I'd cut off a man's penis and make him eat it if it saved millions of lives.

if you are single now you know why

24 has corrupted my mind! :shocked:

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ergeorge
I suspect that torture is likely a very unreliable way to get accurate information.

It can work well if done right.

What was that quote from Resevoir Dogs?
"If you beat on him long enough, he'll tell you he started the Chicago fire. That don't neccesarily make it so."

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: IHYLN

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Certain situations, yes.

If a nuclear bomb was set to go off in NYC, then I'd cut off a man's penis and make him eat it if it saved millions of lives.

if you are single now you know why

24 has corrupted my mind! :shocked:

It also turned you into a bitch!

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: IHYLN

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Certain situations, yes.

If a nuclear bomb was set to go off in NYC, then I'd cut off a man's penis and make him eat it if it saved millions of lives.

if you are single now you know why

24 has corrupted my mind! :shocked:

It also turned you into a bitch!

No, that was your fault :brokenheart:

 

[maddogchen]

interesting thing I read somewhere. in the Korean war, south Koreans would routinely torture captured N. Korean agents. But the information gained out of the interrogations were largely inaccurate because the tortured person would say whatever you wanted him to say to get out of the torture, even if it wasn't true.

while on the other hand, American soldiers found it easier to get accurate information from captured N. Korean troops by offering them hot coffee and a friendly smile. It could be that the agents were trained to lie, and the soldiers weren't..but i thought it was interesting info.

 

[bigalt]

i'm against it, because it's impossible to draw a line as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. and what happens when it turns out you've been pulling the wrong guy's fingernails out?

 

[StageLeft]

while on the other hand, American soldiers found it easier to get accurate information from captured N. Korean troops by offering them hot coffee and a friendly smile. It could be that the agents were trained to lie, and the soldiers weren't..but i thought it was interesting info.

Try hot coffee and beer first, and knives second.

The S.koreans screwed up by trying to get info from somebody who didn't have it. That's not torturing's fault, but theirs. If somebody has information that you can quickly verify as real or not, you can rest assured that torture will get you answers.