Torture

[Edmund Blackadder]

I made this (below quoted) comment in the '24' thread and I was expecting some kind of response.

See, if someone said to me in 2001 'If we torture this guy, we will find the bombers before they even get in the air' I'll be the first to hand them a kit bag with sharp implements and honestly speaking, I don't care what people think of me for saying it.

If its a choice between one confirmed (and that has to be the part thats checked) terrorist suffering pain OR thousands of innocent, law abiding, people dying needlessly then there is no contest for me, screw his [expletive deleted] human rights!

As there isn't and as it is something that is worth discussing, I wonder what other peoples opinions of Torture is.

Is there ever any time that you could condone it?

If George Bush came on TV tomorrow and says 'Yes, we tortured a guy during my presidency, but he had information that stopped x amount of people being killed in an attack' or if Barack said something in 10 years time that was similar, would/could you condone it?

My views are there in the quote.

 

[Frketson]

i definately agree, by torturing one guy who doesnt even deserve to live, and ending up saving lots of people. Theres no contest there.

 

[Washburne]

The choice between torturing one person against saving hundreds, thousands or even more is of course easy. But can one ever be sure that torturing someone will lead to saving a lot of people? Or that the person getting tortured at least "deserve" it? How many innocent people am I willing to sacrifice to save lets say 700 people? 1? 10? 100? 699? I love 24, love how Jack makes the hard choices but that´s for my entertainment. We often know who the bad guy is. How would I feel about it irl? Lets just say I´m glad I´m not in a position to make any final decicons. I don´t think I can. I´m "weak" like that. How would I feel about it if I just found out that America tortures people but it have lead to saving x thousands of peolple. Probobly "ignore" the feelings I have about torture in general and be happy for the lives saved.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I generally don't have an opinion. But I do wonder--what if the person they're torturing really doesn't know anything, doesn't have anything to do with whatever it is, and they torture him anyway? Who gets to decide who gets tortured and who just gets questioned? If the person does have information, great, but what if they're innocent?

 

[Revolver]

24 is great, but as it turns out, real life doesn't work like 24. Almost all research ever done on torture points to it leading to faulty information as often as it leads to the truth. People will (crazily enough) say what they think people want to hear to make the torture stop. And as others have pointed out, is there any way in real life to know if the person really deserves to be tortured. People picked up by the U.S. as terrorists are not given trials, people. And even if they were, since when do people ever get these things right 100% of the time? If it were just a simple matter of a terrorists human rights versus saving lives, of course you'd go for saving lives. But what if an innocent person gets tortured? Is that okay providing torture saves people in other cases? In my opinion, no. You can't stop terrorism by acting like terrorists. There's a line civilized people cannot and should not cross.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

24 is great, but as it turns out, real life doesn't work like 24. Almost all research ever done on torture points to it leading to faulty information as often as it leads to the truth. People will (crazily enough) say what they think people want to hear to make the torture stop. And as others have pointed out, is there any way in real life to know if the person really deserves to be tortured. People picked up by the U.S. as terrorists are not given trials, people. And even if they were, since when do people ever get these things right 100% of the time? If it were just a simple matter of a terrorists human rights versus saving lives, of course you'd go for saving lives. But what if an innocent person gets tortured? Is that okay providing torture saves people in other cases? In my opinion, no. You can't stop terrorism by acting like terrorists. There's a line civilized people cannot and should not cross.

I agree. Mostly. I do feel, however, that torture can possibly be the lesser of two evils when a security service is dealing with an absoulutely imminent terrorist threat. If time is of the utmost importance...well, I certainly think of it as an option.

I certaily couldn't condone any kind of prolonged torture, or imprisonment without trial etc. The issue with how I see it is where do you draw the line, and how do you ensure that it doesn't spiral.

 

[slayerpower]

Torture, IMO, is wrong. Here's my question to pro-torture people. Could you torture someone? I think that torturing someone makes a person lose a bit of their humanity. They don't care about the suspect's well-being. They just want to hurt them as much as they can, as long as they can to get an answer from the suspect. Besides, if you torture a person long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Torture, IMO, is wrong. Here's my question to pro-torture people. Could you torture someone? I think that torturing someone makes a person lose a bit of their humanity. They don't care about the suspect's well-being. They just want to hurt them as much as they can, as long as they can to get an answer from the suspect. Besides, if you torture a person long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

Thats not the case, I don't think.

The person doing the torturing isn't doing it out of some sadistic pleasure, well I hope not, so they may care about the spects well being BUT if they are torturing them for a reason, that will be their justification.

If we lived in a society where torture was the first port of call, I would stand against it BUT torture is an extreme measure should be used when all else fails.
When you get to the stage of torture there is VERY little doubt, thanks to the less invasive measures taken, that the suspect is hiding something.

I have absolutely no issue with known terrorists being tortured for information about an already planted bomb/set in motion plan.

And yes, if someone had come to me in 2001 and said, if you torture this guy, you will stop 3000 people dying, then I would say 'pass me the equipment'.

Would I feel terrible, damn right but I would sleep at night thinking of the 3000 innocent people I had saved.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I agree with EB, I don't think torture is the first option people jump to, it would be done as a last effort, and with good evidence to suspect the person knows something.

I don't think a Terrorist has the same rights as everyone else, they are giving up that right by choosing to do what they do, They are going to the extreme it's only fair people have to go to the extreme to get a proper answer from them.

I wouldn't jump right into torturing someone, but if someone showed me enough evidence to support the suspicion that someone knows something, I think I'd be able to do it to save the lives of others!

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

If we lived in a society where torture was the first port of call, I would stand against it BUT torture is an extreme measure should be used when all else fails.
When you get to the stage of torture there is VERY little doubt, thanks to the less invasive measures taken, that the suspect is hiding something.

I agree with you on that part, and also I think that if you KNOW for absolutely certain someone's gonna do something terrible, torture is not the best, but certainly not the worst way to find out what and where and when. There should be restrictions, sure, and the torturers (?) should be carefully screened to prevent the weirdos and the sadist getting in, but if hundreds or thousands lives are at stake, yeah, go ahead.

However, and I'm sure everyone's aware of that, most of the times, you don't know for absolutely certain that someone 'deserves' to be tortured. There might have been a mistake, or they might have been captured by some racist army person (they do exist 😉) who thought 'oh well, everyone with a turban and a beard is a terrorist' or whatever. Things like that happen, and in that case you would be torturing and humiliating a totally innocent person. And that is something i wouldn't want to live with.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

However, and I'm sure everyone's aware of that, most of the times, you don't know for absolutely certain that someone 'deserves' to be tortured. There might have been a mistake, or they might have been captured by some racist army person (they do exist 😉) who thought 'oh well, everyone with a turban and a beard is a terrorist' or whatever. Things like that happen, and in that case you would be torturing and humiliating a totally innocent person. And that is something i wouldn't want to live with.

That, I think, is different.

That is someone torturing someone for pleasure and not for a good reason.
As I said once ALL the steps have been taken that don't result in answers BUT there is definitely something hidden, torture is a viable step.
Thing is, if the person is lying at this stage, they know they'll get more.

 

[LorneyTunes]

I think torture of any kind is disgusting , no one should suffer even if they have been EVIL they should just be put out of the world, rather than someone taking revenge. It doesn't really help. Look at the Count of Monte Cristo, do you think he was truely happy after he made Fernand Mondego's life a misery, maybe a small part but it never gets you back what you have lost.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I think torture of any kind is disgusting , no one should suffer even if they have been EVIL they should just be put out of the world, rather than someone taking revenge. It doesn't really help. Look at the Count of Monte Cristo, do you think he was truely happy after he made Fernand Mondego's life a misery, maybe a small part but it never gets you back what you have lost.

I just want to be clear we're on about different types of torture.

I don't condone it in any other respect than as a last attempt to get information from a known/without shadow of doubt terrorist (as in anyone putting peoples lives in danger for personal reasons).

Torture should never be retaliatory, it should never be used on criminals after the event, it should be the last means to gather information before an atrocity happens.

Simple question for all you naysayers using the event I reference - 9/11.

You've just been told there is a terrorist attack going to happen today at some point that will result in nearly 4000 people being killed.
You don't know when, where or how BUT you have someone you know is linked to it in custody and will have some piece of information, however small, that will go towards preventing it, or at the very least you have the strongest belief that he has some.

Would you sanction torture if everything else has failed and you're sure you're right/you trust the person who has told you they believe this person has intelligence?


Unrelated but funny

I was just reminded of a Frankie Boyle comment regarding Saddam Hussein.

'Watching Saddams execution on Youtube made me realise one thing - there is nothing I won't w**k to!"

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Torture, IMO, is wrong. Here's my question to pro-torture people. Could you torture someone? I think that torturing someone makes a person lose a bit of their humanity. They don't care about the suspect's well-being. They just want to hurt them as much as they can, as long as they can to get an answer from the suspect. Besides, if you torture a person long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

No, I probably couldn't. Not effectively anyway, but in the right (or, rather, wrong) situation, I'd feel it was the right thing to do to give it a shot.

Then again, I couldn't be a spy. I couldn't be a politician. I still acknowledge that the things they do (within their legal duties, of course) are often essential, if not tasteful.

Oh, and EB, I agree. We seem to be on the same page on this one.

For once. 😉

 

[Uncle Rory]

I generally don't have an opinion. But I do wonder--what if the person they're torturing really doesn't know anything, doesn't have anything to do with whatever it is, and they torture him anyway? Who gets to decide who gets tortured and who just gets questioned? If the person does have information, great, but what if they're innocent?

As long as it's not George W. Bush setting the limits, I can see the need in extreme cases. Bush had no interest in Human Rights, especially for non-white, non-americans and that's why extreme criteria should be met before a decision to torture is implimented.

Uncle Rory

 

[InsaneMystic]

Absolutely against torture, in any case.

If 3000 people die because of lack of information, well, of course it's tragic, but it's the fault of the terrorists, not of the security service. They will have died for the upholding of human rights, and that's a fine and heroic way to pass out IMO. I would definitely let them die before torturing the terrorist, and I'd lose no sleep over it. If they do die, give the ones who planned it (and survived the attack) a fair trial and send them behind bars for the rest of their lives, if need be, but don't stoop down to disregard the same rights you blame them for not upholding.

If we allow universal human rights to be watered down in specific cases, why bother stopping terrorists at all any more? After all, the 9/11ers had, in their opinion, good reasons to kill all those people. There were only "filthy imperialist heathens" in the towers anyway, right? Who's to say those people should have had a right to live, if we don't base that right on the notion that it should be a general, universal human right? Who's to care if they get killed? Well, their relatives and friends might, but if no one you knew was in the Towers, so what if they crash and burn?

Show me a person, any person, and I'll come up with at least one very good reason why some people would say he/she shouldn't be allowed to have any rights, up to and including the one to live and be free from physical harm (the possibilities you find within the categories of gender, political attitude, ethnicity, sexual alignment and religion are usually more than sufficient). If you don't have human rights as universal, and thus inviolable under any circumstances, your only alternative is to allow for someone to mark the categories of what does or does not constitute a "full human entitled with rights". And if you think anyone should be allowed to do so, then please explain why you think Hitler (as a sovereign head of state) shouldn't have had every right marking Jews off as sub-human and bound for elimination. You open Pandora's Box there, and I prefer it to remain firmly closed, thank you.

Besides, absolute security can never be had in a democracy, for that you need a police state and an absolute ruler whose word is The Only Law. Well, I've been raised to think that Nazi Germany was not quite Utopia, even though internal security-wise, no democracy could ever compete with it.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

If 3000 people die because of lack of information, well, of course it's tragic, but it's the fault of the terrorists, not of the security service. They will have died for the upholding of human rights, and that's a fine and heroic way to pass out IMO.

Say that exact same line if ever you are in the unfortunate position where it is someone you care for that is caught up in a terrorist attack.

No terrorist attack in the course of modern history has without some information known by the security services, so if they can prevent it I have no issue.

As far as I am concerned the terrorist lost any of his 'human rights' when he decided to play part in a plan to kill innocent civilians.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

Show me a person, any person, and I'll come up with at least one very good reason why some people would say he/she shouldn't be allowed to have any rights, up to and including the one to live and be free from physical harm (the possibilities you find within the categories of gender, political attitude, ethnicity, sexual alignment and religion are usually more than sufficient). If you don't have human rights as universal, and thus inviolable under any circumstances, your only alternative is to allow for someone to mark the categories of what does or does not constitute a "full human entitled with rights". And if you think anyone should be allowed to do so, then please explain why you think Hitler (as a sovereign head of state) shouldn't have had every right marking Jews off as sub-human and bound for elimination. You open Pandora's Box there, and I prefer it to remain firmly closed, thank you.

Besides, absolute security can never be had in a democracy, for that you need a police state and an absolute ruler whose word is The Only Law. Well, I've been raised to think that Nazi Germany was not quite Utopia, even though internal security-wise, no democracy could ever compete with it.

I just wanna say there is a marked distinction between torturing a known terrorist who very probably will give information to prevent an atrocity AND a head of state using his position to exterminate an entire group of people.

No one is arguing that the terrorist is being marked as 'sub-human' they are simply revoking his human rights for the purposes of gathering information and as soon as s/he is has given all the information they have, they will then stand a fair trial.

Human Rights violation is not a reason.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Say that exact same line if ever you are in the unfortunate position where it is someone you care for that is caught up in a terrorist attack.

I will try my very best to do exactly that. If I should fail, you're welcome to call me a hypocrite (and I will most definitely call myself one before you do).

As far as I am concerned the terrorist lost any of his 'human rights' when he decided to play part in a plan to kill innocent civilians.

I just wanna say there is a marked distinction between torturing a known terrorist who very probably will give information to prevent an atrocity AND a head of state using his position to exterminate an entire group of people.

As far as Hitler was concerned, any Jew lost his right to live when he/she decided to live within German borders, "parasite off the economy" and "infect the Aryan bloodline". Within the Nazi mindset, you could even say Hitler was trying to "prevent an atrocity" by punishing "criminals/terrorists".
Also remember that in the early days of Nazi Germany, any Jew was still free to move out of state. (If no other country wanted them, or they refused to leave their homes and belongings behind... well you can't blame the Führer for the consequences, right? *no smiley bitter enough for this degree of sarcasm*)

And please don't take this as calling you a Nazi. (I trust you to be intelligent enough not to have done so in the first place, but I'll say it just to make sure.) I'd just want to know where you see that "marked distinction", because to me, it seems more like a spongey peace of personal opinion (which I tend to consider quite a weak foundation to dish out blame on anyone, starters of genocide and World Wars included). From my experience, you need an absolute value somewhere, or else everything doodles off into relativity, and the inviolability of universal human rights is the only such absolute I have found to hold up in my roundabout 35 years on this planet.

 

[Relic]

I'm just wondering why torture in the form of pain/ sharp bags of things is even a credible option with what we know about how the human mind works. Water Boarding is not torture in the physical form so much as fear...

But even then, they did that in a similar fashion at the salem witch trials and got (likely) false confessions.

In this case it could lead to dis-information or counter intelligence.

Bribery is still a better option when vialble, or good old fashioned espionage. Ultimately it is a last resort that lets you say you exhausted all possibilities, its not necessarly an answer.

I'm not too keen on it.

 

[palabravampiress]

I won't presume to tell other countries what they should or should not do with regard to torture. I do, however, feel quite comfortable telling my own country what to do, and that is: USA, don't torture people. Don't transport them to foreign prisons just so that you can bypass their civil liberties (and then torture them), either. There is a lot of debate as to whether or not the Bush administration followed the letter of the law with its policies on torture, but there is very little debate as to whether or not that administration followed the spirit of the law. The U.S. is founded on the rights and responsibilities of the individual and on the notion that these rights cannot be forcefully taken away by the government unless by due process. By denying terror suspects due process and taking away their civil liberties, the U.S. forfeits something even more precious than lives: it forfeits the ideals upon which it stands.

This isn't only an ideological issue, though. It's also a practical issue. No one can say that the U.S. finds itself in a palatable position right now. In many ways, we are more vulnerable than we were before 9/11. When we stood silently by and allowed a corrupt administration to wage unjust wars, lie about foreign intelligence, sacrifice our own (and others') lives and civil liberties in the pursuit of terrorists, and spend our economy into the ground, we lost the confidence and backing of many of our allies so that we now stand largely alone against the threat of terrorism. By treating humanely those who would murder our citizens, we are proving the invalidity of their position and retaining the high ground in the eyes of the world. By sinking to their level and committing atrocities in response to atrocities even at the cost of our own founding values, we sacrifice the respect and esteem of the world and, with it, the ability to adequately fight and sanction those who would harm us. Simply put, torture does not make for successful foreign policy.

I don't think it's a simple matter of if X, then Y. Instead, I think the U.S. should always refrain from torture -- even if our enemies don't or if we could save several lives (assuming the intelligence that we garner from such methods is reliable) -- because, in the end, it is usually not in our best interest as a country.