Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What's wrong with causing one person a lot of pain to save a few thousand, if not a few hundred thousand? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. -Spock
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Torture is terrible.. I think there should be more development in 'truth syrum' kind of things.
When is the line drawn between torture and punishment? I had to spend a night in jail once (not a DUI) and they gave me three small (2ft by 2ft) rags to sleep with. It was freezing cold in there (about 65 degrees). The bed was steel and too small for me to fit in. The edges of the steel were turned upward so that laying over them was impossible. I could not sleep in that bed for a night. The other people in there that were taller (over 5' 10") all said they couldn't sleep because their heads were pressed up against the steel supports. I would've killed myself if I didn't know I would be getting out the next day. Was that torture?
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Torture is not a reliable way to extract information. People will say anything to get it to stop.
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
The Russians, Bulgarians, Jordanians, Egyptians and others would disagree with you. The Russians in particular took it to another level so to speak. They had/have several institutes that specialized in teaching interrogation techniques. Torture was/is an integral part of the curriculum. They exported that "technology" quite extensively. There is a reason we are not bringing captured high ranking Al Queda to this country. They are being interrogated elsewhere, that interrogation probably includes torture and we are allowing it because it is effective. We seem to think this relieves us of the legal, moral and ethical aspects of torture. It does not.
The OP question was/is about torture. When should you allow it? I posted a hypothetical on another board about a kidnapped girl with a limited amount of time to live (diabetes) and a known abductor. Do you torture him to save the girl even if you know for sure he took her? Do we put a system in place where you can obtain a "torture warrant"? In the case of captured POW's or "enemy combatants" who gets to decide who is important enough to torture and who isn't? Of course, when you go down this road guess how much you get to bitch when your captured servicemen are tortured. I am not one who usually invokes the "slippery slope" argument but in this particular matter where the entering argument is to abuse someone, the slope seems rather steep and the footing near the edge on the high ground looks rather treacherous.
I think those countries use it more as a means to terrify their citizens into submisson than as a an effective means of extracting information. I may be wrong on that. I do, however, want proof that the US is employing it as a means of interrogation before I go around accusing.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What's wrong with causing one person a lot of pain to save a few thousand, if not a few hundred thousand?
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Torture is not a reliable way to extract information. People will say anything to get it to stop.
Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What's wrong with causing one person a lot of pain to save a few thousand, if not a few hundred thousand?
Deciding who gets to ask, and answer that question.
Originally posted by: SammySon
Why did you only link to the 4th page?
How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, "I'm sorry you'll have to die in agony, we just couldn't bring ourselves to . . . "
a line demarcating the legitimate use of torture can be drawn. Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between "US" and "THEM" will remain clear.
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Torture is not a reliable way to extract information. People will say anything to get it to stop.
