NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it?

Perhaps in extreme circumstances where rapid extraction of information from a detainee would result in saving the lives of several hundred or more non-combatants. Other than that, probably not.

Suppose, for example, that Osama bin Laden was captured. Would torturing him be permissible?

Suppose, for example, that Osama bin Laden was captured. Would torturing him be permissible?
Now, after his entire organization has changed and he no longer seems to have the control he once exercised? Nope.

What about people who themselves are guilty of torturing others?

What about people who themselves are guilty of torturing others?

No difference, it's still wrong. Wrong + wrong != right.

I have to say no, torture simply isn't right.

No, even ignoring the 'it is cruel' arguement. You cannot get reliable evidence from torture. The 'client' will say anything to stop the pain. Even if they no nothing.

If it involves girls with whips and leather, than yes.

There are less violent ways to interrogate a person. Breaking them down mentally seems to work nicely, and like Conceptualists said, physical torture doesn't give accurate results.

you almost never get true information from POWs if you torture them since they will be all too willing to say something to make the tortore stop. thats why not many civilized counties today use it. i can only hope the stories about my own country's(USA) torture of Iraqi detainees is false or very small and isolated, but....

i can only hope the stories about my own country's(USA) torture of Iraqi detainees is false or very small and isolated, but....

The luxury of hoping that is no longer something you can afford, this side of Abu-Ghraib (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) and the stories ex-detainees from Guantánamo Bay have told.

No difference, it's still wrong. Wrong + wrong != right.
Ah, but what if you were multiplying the torture he committed a hundredfold. In that case wrong*wrong = right. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.

Torture is always amoral in my mind. I can see how it could be an invaluable tool in militial matters, but that does not make it right.

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.
That's...that's terrible. If nothing else, they are still members of Homo sapiens. How can anyone renounce their humanity? Is it that if someone ever commits a crime, than they are forevermore ostricised or exiled?

I answered yes, but only because anything can be justified given the right circumstances. 99.99999999% of the time torture isn't justified since it serves no real purpose other than making someone suffer. The only situation I can think of that might justify torture is if you are 100% positive that the person being tortured has information that could prevent something far worse than the torture itself, you've tried all other means to get the information, and you have some way of verifying the information once you have it.

Short of this scenario, or something very similar, I would say the odds of torture actually serving any purpose aren't good enough to justify it.

That's...that's terrible. If nothing else, they are still members of Homo sapiens. How can anyone renounce their humanity? Is it that if someone ever commits a crime, than they are forevermore ostricised or exiled?

Regardless of how it makes you feel emotionally (which it shouldn't--those non-humans aren't DESERVING of pity), it's true. There is more to being a human being than bare physical attributes. Think about it. Compared to most beasts, you are not particularly large, you don't have sharp claws or long teeth, and your strength and speed aren't anything to shout about, either. So what is it, then, that sets you apart from lesser beings? Your ability to reason! Man properly deals with man not by brute force but by reasoned persuasion, in accordance with his nature--and even when dealing with nature, which MUST ultimately be dealt with by physical force (after all, if I went up to a tree and tried to persuade it to fall down so I could build a house in its place, you would quite justifiably call me insane), man still uses reason to decide first what it is he wants to do (and whether he wants to do it), and second how he intends to go about accomplishing it. Thus, when a man rejects reason as his means of apprehending the world around him, he has rejected his very nature--the very quality that makes him human; thus, he ceases to be human.

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, arsonists, have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.
Noo, killing them is perfectly fine, castrating the rapist is perfectly fine, torturing the kidnapper to find the location of their hostage is perfectly fine. Indiscriminately torturing them, while it may give personal satisfaction, is wrong.

Regardless of how it makes you feel emotionally (which it shouldn't--those non-humans aren't DESERVING of pity), it's true. There is more to being a human being than bare physical attributes. Think about it. Compared to most beasts, you are not particularly large, you don't have sharp claws or long teeth, and your strength and speed aren't anything to shout about, either. So what is it, then, that sets you apart from lesser beings? Your ability to reason! Man properly deals with man not by brute force but by reasoned persuasion, in accordance with his nature--and even when dealing with nature, which MUST ultimately be dealt with by physical force (after all, if I went up to a tree and tried to persuade it to fall down so I could build a house in its place, you would quite justifiably call me insane), man still uses reason to decide first what it is he wants to do (and whether he wants to do it), and second how he intends to go about accomplishing it. Thus, when a man rejects reason as his means of apprehending the world around him, he has rejected his very nature--the very quality that makes him human; thus, he ceases to be human.


Ironically you are the one who becomes dehumanized when you take on such views.

Im confused by this thread.. what exactly is torture to u people.. is it the torture of the old days.. when if u were catpured by the enemy you could expect to learn a new definition of pain on a daily basis through a mirade of pain inducing techniques of which sometimes (if u even left alive) you would be lacking several limbs.. or the tehcniques employed today.. where a guy has to stand naked infront of a barking dog..


If a nuke got into the country.. your telling me you'd rather see new york disapear under a cloud then have the military or FBI or CIA gain the informationt hey need to curtail the attack by employing the techniques (far from those brutal ones of the old days) they use today.. We are far more civilized then in the old days.. those people who belive the techniques used by the military today are truely torturous fail to face reality. It is the information we get form these techniques that keep us alive. It is not as though the enemy will just give us what we need if we ask with politeness. And if we have come to the point where mere humilitation is an unslightly and inhumane act.. it will not be long before school children in the play ground are thrown n jail for their taunts

If a nuke got into the country.. your telling me you'd rather see new york disapear under a cloud then have the military or FBI or CIA gain the informationt hey need to curtail the attack by employing the techniques (far from those brutal ones of the old days) they use today.. We are far more civilized then in the old days.. those people who belive the techniques used by the military today are truely torturous fail to face reality. It is the information we get form these techniques that keep us alive. It is not as though the enemy will just give us what we need if we ask with politeness. And if we have come to the point where mere humilitation is an unslightly and inhumane act.. it will not be long before school children in the play ground are thrown n jail for their taunts

My main worry about this sort of thing is the old slippery slope argument. It's true that there are situations where torture might be the best/only option, but if we allow some group of people to use torture at its discretion, it opens the way for very bad things.

For instance, most of the time, you're not going to know for sure if the person you have knows anything, and the practical thing to do, if you've decided torture is an effective means of getting information, is to torture him to find out. But I wouldn't want to live in a country where there was a chance I could be subjected to something like that even if I was guilty of nothing.

Even if you don't have a problem with the idea of torturing another human being, I would hope you have a problem with the idea of torturing an innocent human being, and very little is worth the risk of that.

Besides, torture is a pretty unreliable means of getting information. People are quick to tell a torturer what he wants to hear, even if its not true. It is a rather brutal technique with usefulness that's nowhere near commensurate with its brutality.

But again i have to ask what is your definition of torture.. I find it unfathemable to think that someone can see the use of humliliation and fear (use of dogs) to be the "brutal acts" they are described .. and when u speak of this slipary slope .. u must realize, torture has been used since the dawn of man, and is employed regulararly by the government (even if humanitarian groups arn't complaining about it) .. there simply is no comparison between what tortoure was once considered to what it is considered today.

Also .. those people extracting information, are heavily trained to identifiy what is credible information, and what is not.. otherwise the use of torture would not be such a popular method of infomration extraction.

This is not to say i support the use of torture on a regular basis.. but i will not lose sleep over the idea that some where our government is using torture (dogs, nudity, extreme temeprature change, or sleep deprevation) hardly the inhuman acts one may think of when speaking of torture.. to keep our nation a little more safe, our troops a little more informed...

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.

then i suppose its feasable to torture anyone involved in american politics, or rather, politics in general, yes?

remeber.. todays "torture".. u will leave (perhaps requiring a year or more of psychiatric help) yesterdays torture usually ended with a bullet in the head, or at the very least the loss of limbs. You are comparing apples and oranges

on another note.. im less admiant about torture then that other kid who said trespasser renoucne their humanity lol.. he should never be placed in a position of power

No, torture is never justified.

But again i have to ask what is your definition of torture.. I find it unfathemable to think that someone can see the use of humliliation and fear (use of dogs) to be the "brutal acts" they are described .. and when u speak of this slipary slope .. u must realize, torture has been used since the dawn of man, and is employed regulararly by the government (even if humanitarian groups arn't complaining about it) .. there simply is no comparison between what tortoure was once considered to what it is considered today.

Also .. those people extracting information, are heavily trained to identifiy what is credible information, and what is not.. otherwise the use of torture would not be such a popular method of infomration extraction.

This is not to say i support the use of torture on a regular basis.. but i will not lose sleep over the idea that some where our government is using torture (dogs, nudity, extreme temeprature change, or sleep deprevation) hardly the inhuman acts one may think of when speaking of torture.. to keep our nation a little more safe, our troops a little more informed...

So "our government" and "our nation" has special rights somehow. Seem to recall similar arguments being used by Nazis at Nuremberg.

If Al Qaeda capture an American serviceman, are they entitled to use torture to keep their troops "a little more informed"?

Torture is torture irrespective of who is the torturer and who the torturee (have I just invented a word?).

The act should be viewed in and of itself. To say "we can, you can't" is to operate in a moral vacuum.

And, as others have pointed out, the value of information extracted through torture is questionable at best. The use of torture is one reason that the trials of witches were considered so "successful" and persisted for so long.

People will "confess" to the most bizarre "crimes" in order to stop the torture.

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.

Oh, you mean people *accused* of those crimes? Or... convicted by a 'jury of their peers' (keeping in mind some of the people that would make up those 'peers'... I know I wouldn't want any jury of my 'peers' judging *me*...)?

Before or after appeals? Or after a certain number of appeals?

Or is what you *really* mean: "Everytime a crime is committed, it should be permissible to torture a scapegoat so the rest of us can stand around and spit venom about how evil and 'inhuman' they are"?

Ugh... what a disgusting attitude.

Ironically you are the one who becomes dehumanized when you take on such views.

I was going to agree but... now that I think about it? It's incredibly human to dehumanise others... it's a safety-catch... "I would never do that, and I'M A GOOD GUY... therefore, they must be a bad guy".

If that poster had to accept that those criminals are human, he'd have to accept that there was a risk that one day, he might be put in a situation where he would commit similar atrocities. People don't like accepting that sort of thing.

i see it like this if this guy :) is your kid and this guy :gundge: is the bad guy the bad guy tourtures yoru kid as such :) :gundge: then you :eek: catch the bad guy doing so you have alright to tourture and then do this :gundge: :mp5: and take care of your now hurt kid

i see it like this if this guy :) is your kid and this guy :gundge: is the bad guy the bad guy tourtures yoru kid as such :) :gundge: then you :eek: catch the bad guy doing so you have alright to tourture and then do this :gundge: :mp5: and take care of your now hurt kid

Unfortunately, the world is not made up of "good guys" and "bad guys".

Or, if you prefer, if "you" torture a "bad guy" then "you" become a "bad guy".

Ironically you are the one who becomes dehumanized when you take on such views.
Duh, standard Nietzsche philosophy. But then, there is a difference between the sheepdog and the wolf.

Duh, standard Nietzsche philosophy. But then, there is a difference between the sheepdog and the wolf.

Or you believe that there are moral absolutes.

Depends on how civilized you are.

I was going to agree but... now that I think about it? It's incredibly human to dehumanise others... it's a safety-catch... "I would never do that, and I'M A GOOD GUY... therefore, they must be a bad guy".

If that poster had to accept that those criminals are human, he'd have to accept that there was a risk that one day, he might be put in a situation where he would commit similar atrocities. People don't like accepting that sort of thing.

Well said.

And that is precisely why it is important to determine the moral value of an act without reference to who is doing it, or to whom it is being done.

Torture does not become any more or less moral iif it is being done by American servicemen, Nazis, or Al Qaeda.

It mus be equally right or wrong for all instances.

Not true, while despicable, torturing a kidnapper in order toget him to release the wherabouts of his victim is perfectly acceptable in my book, especially if he has stated the person in question is still alive.

Not true, while despicable, torturing a kidnapper in order toget him to release the wherabouts of his victim is perfectly acceptable in my book, especially if he has stated the person in question is still alive.
It's damn inefficient, that's what it is.

If I were being tortured, I'd give up false information immediately. And repeat the process to varying degrees everytime they came back after checking it.

I'd also have set up a system so that if I got caught, the hostage would be killed immediately.

Implimenting torture just encourages criminals to be more rash.

It's damn inefficient, that's what it is.

If I were being tortured, I'd give up false information immediately. And repeat the process to varying degrees everytime they came back after checking it.

I'd also have set up a system so that if I got caught, the hostage would be killed immediately.

Implimenting torture just encourages criminals to be more rash.

Certain types of torture are very effective. The use of drugs to get people to spew makes it impossible for you to keep track of what variations you've been telling. These people are good at it (especially Israelis), and usually will get something useful out of you.

Everyone talks. It's just a matter of time. And with modern techniques, it's usually less than 72 hours.

Khalid Mohammed, the supposed hard ass Al-Q man, talked in a very short period of time. And very accurately, too. Rumor has it that they were repeatedly drowning him in order to break him. If it works, it's ok by me.

Torture for fun is a bad idea. But modern interrogation techniques (drugs, sleep deprivation, prolonged extreme discomfort) are a very good idea.

And, you can't have amateurs do the interrogation techniques, or you get the problem we had in Iraq, and no real answers.

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.

(Applauds)

People like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mobutu Sese Sekou (sp?), etc. deserve(d) to be tortured, especially Hitler.

I believe torture is right, depending on the conditions. This is because, for instance, someone like Saddam Hussein, who control(s/led) an entire nation, and brainwashed them, sent on Kamakazzi (can't spell it) missions, and who took thousands of innocent lies, has inflicted enough pain that it would only be right to inflict pain on him.

You know who Scott Peterson is? Killed his unborn child & wife. He was having an affair. He just got the death penalty. Well, he deserved it, IMHO. Well, listen to this. What would you do, if you saw one of your parents, or your siblings, or someone you care so deeply about, being taken away by someone who's supposted to LOVE them, and then kill them.

How would you feel? You'd want closure. You'd want JUSTICE. Well, sometimes the only way to get Justice is by torture, and yes, IMHO, death is a form of torture. Sure, it's not like the hangings and electric chairs of the olden days, but lethal injection is just as bad.

(I'm only a kid, so please send all flames to /dev/null ;) )

Torture is okay, but if you push it you can make someone confess about anything. So within reason, I guess it's okay

torture is wrong.ill use my standard punishment test.
1.does this prevent them from commiting another crime
NO
2.does this harm them more than nessasary to prevent another crime
YES

hence torture is immoral.torture=vengence,and when you seek vengence and not justise,you are just as bad as those you seek to inflict vengence upon.
there is no justifible reason to harm people for information when things like truth serum exists.and if its now working,why the HELL arent you figureing out how to make some form that does?isnt it the purpose of a service force(goverment,millitary,police etc.) to protect PEOPLE.and any human is just as much a person as the next.

To those who said 'no,' let me ask you this: would torturing Hitler have been justified? I say hell yes!

To those who said 'no,' let me ask you this: would torturing Hitler have been justified? I say hell yes!
Why?

It is pain for pains sake. IT makes you a sadist of the worse sort who only has revenge on his mind which takes priority over justice.

Why?

It is pain for pains sake. IT makes you a sadist of the worse sort who only has revenge on his mind which takes priority over justice.

Hitler would deserve it, though.

Why?

It is pain for pains sake. IT makes you a sadist of the worse sort who only has revenge on his mind which takes priority over justice.

I'm sure that if an expert were to administer a combination of Versed and methamphetamine, you would sing like a canary, and not remember anything you said.

Is that so bad? Getting you to tell us something against your will? At most, it would leave a needle mark. And you would have no memory of being questioned.

There are less violent ways to interrogate a person. Breaking them down mentally seems to work nicely, and like Conceptualists said, physical torture doesn't give accurate results.
Mental abuse is still defined as torture under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Hitler would deserve it, though.
Irrespective of if he deserved it or not, you a vengeful little sadist to do such a thing.

I'm sure that if an expert were to administer a combination of Versed and methamphetamine, you would sing like a canary, and not remember anything you said.

Is that so bad? Getting you to tell us something against your will? At most, it would leave a needle mark. And you would have no memory of being questioned.
No not as bad. But still bad non the less imo

Torture against HUMAN BEINGS is wrong.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, vandals, trespassers, and defrauders have renounced their humanity. Therefore, torturing them is perfectly fine.

No, what they have done is break the law. No one can renounce their humanity, any more than a dog can renounce his caninity. Under your conception of justified torture, you TOO could be tortured if you stray onto the lawn of a neighbour. Damn trespasser! Pass me the electric cables!

Mental abuse is still defined as torture under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Hmm. I do not consider the United Nations a moral authority on anything. Not after Kofi Annan, acting on his own authority, forbade the Belgian peacekeepers from trying to stop the genocide in Rwanda, as he had made a deal with the Hutus to allow them to kill at will.

And I don't see Kofi standing tall at the Hague, with a rope around his neck, so we'll skip trying to say that the UN is worth two cents in the morality department.

Or, perhaps the 300,000 starved in Somalia after the US first intervened at UN request, and let the UN take over. Oh, they didn't starve until the US left, and the UN let Aidid keep the food and starve whoever he wanted.

Don't make me laugh.

Hmm. I do not consider the United Nations a moral authority on anything. Not after Kofi Annan, acting on his own authority, forbade the Belgian peacekeepers from trying to stop the genocide in Rwanda, as he had made a deal with the Hutus to allow them to kill at will.

And I don't see Kofi standing tall at the Hague, with a rope around his neck, so we'll skip trying to say that the UN is worth two cents in the morality department.

Or, perhaps the 300,000 starved in Somalia after the US first intervened at UN request, and let the UN take over. Oh, they didn't starve until the US left, and the UN let Aidid keep the food and starve whoever he wanted.

Don't make me laugh.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=573&e=7&u=/nm/20041213/od_nm/italy_qaeda_mobsters_dc

I'm sure this'll cheer you up. Gotta love the mob sometimes.

What about people who themselves are guilty of torturing others?An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.

Ironically you are the one who becomes dehumanized when you take on such views.

Incorrect.

Oh, you mean people *accused* of those crimes? Or... convicted by a 'jury of their peers' (keeping in mind some of the people that would make up those 'peers'... I know I wouldn't want any jury of my 'peers' judging *me*...)?

No, I mean someone who actually did in fact commit such an act.

How you know whether or not someone did in fact commit such an act is an entirely different issue.

It's a fallacy to attempt to disprove a metaphysical statement with an epistemological argument.

I was going to agree but... now that I think about it? It's incredibly human to dehumanise others... it's a safety-catch... "I would never do that, and I'M A GOOD GUY... therefore, they must be a bad guy".
No.

If I were to commit such an act, then I, too, would become subhuman.

Please pay attention to what was written--one does not lose his humanity until the instant he commits (or attempts to commit) such an act. He is perfectly human up until that moment.

Incidentally, no one has ever bothered to actually refute my reasoning. You've just put forth arguments from emotion, which lack any actual substance.

If that poster had to accept that those criminals are human,

I will not, because it is simply not true. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate as such.

No, what they have done is break the law. No one can renounce their humanity,
I have explained elsewhere in this thread how one may indeed renounce his humanity. If you think I am wrong, by all means, state your objections--but put some actual substance into it; don't make the base and insubstantial arguments from emotion others seem so fond of us.
Under your conception of justified torture, you TOO could be tortured if you stray onto the lawn of a neighbour.
Yep.

No.

If I were to commit such an act, then I, too, would become subhuman.

Please pay attention to what was written--one does not lose his humanity until the instant he commits (or attempts to commit) such an act. He is perfectly human up until that moment.

Incidentally, no one has ever bothered to actually refute my reasoning. You've just put forth arguments from emotion, which lack any actual substance.

I will not, because it is simply not true. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate as such.


You don't have a definition of torture. Theoretically, if I delay giving you lunch (assuming you're a prisoner), I'm torturing you if I then say I'll let you have lunch now if you answer questions.

Interrogation is not torture. And most modern interrogation techniques (Abu Gharib notwithstanding - an exercise in idiocy by idiots) do not involve torture in the "thumbscrew and rack" sense.

Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, drugs, and neurolinguistic techniques are quite effective without permanently harming the subject in any way.

If you don't know anything, they'll know that in 72 hours or less. If you do, you may talk accurately and completely within the first hour. But, they'll ask again, just to make sure.

In most professional cases of interrogation, the subject will have little or no memory of having been asked, or answered, any questions. This makes cohesive lying next to impossible.

If you wanted to outlaw "torture" and be thorough, you should outlaw asking any questions. That's not really a practical possibility. Nowadays, the proper interrogator doesn't leave marks - and in most cases, doesn't even leave memories. I wouldn't want a released prisoner to be able to tell his own superiors what he gave away. I want him to believe that he suffered isolation and deprivation for nothing (they never even asked me any questions!).

Your moral stance may, in extremis, be the same as those poor State Department fools who thought that breaking the Japanese Naval code was ungentlemanly and beneath them (we don't read other people's letters!).

Says so, remember? It's like, 'slow and unusual punishments are not allowed.'

Please pay attention to what was written--one does not lose his humanity until the instant he commits (or attempts to commit) such an act. He is perfectly human up until that moment.

Incidentally, no one has ever bothered to actually refute my reasoning. You've just put forth arguments from emotion, which lack any actual substance.

Ok, you're assuming there is no chance of rehabilitation for criminals. If that's the case, why don't we just kill them all once they're found guilty? It would save a lot from jailing costs.

I believe, like some other people, that torture may sometimes be necessary (ie in cases of national security, finding kidnapped victims). But I believe that even in these cases it is immoral and the torturer should be punished.

What this would mean is that if you were ever faced with a situation where you had to chose between torturing a terrorist and having new york destoryed from a nuke, and you chose the torturing, you would still have to face the negative consequences of your actions (jail time likely) even though you probably made the right decision.

Because if you ever have to ask yourself if the end justifies the means, then it doesn't. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ok, you're assuming there is no chance of rehabilitation for criminals.
No, I'm not. I'm simply not interested in it. I'm only interested in justice.

You don't have a definition of torture. Theoretically, if I delay giving you lunch (assuming you're a prisoner), I'm torturing you if I then say I'll let you have lunch now if you answer questions.

Interrogation is not torture. And most modern interrogation techniques (Abu Gharib notwithstanding - an exercise in idiocy by idiots) do not involve torture in the "thumbscrew and rack" sense.

Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, drugs, and neurolinguistic techniques are quite effective without permanently harming the subject in any way.

If you don't know anything, they'll know that in 72 hours or less. If you do, you may talk accurately and completely within the first hour. But, they'll ask again, just to make sure.

In most professional cases of interrogation, the subject will have little or no memory of having been asked, or answered, any questions. This makes cohesive lying next to impossible.

If you wanted to outlaw "torture" and be thorough, you should outlaw asking any questions. That's not really a practical possibility. Nowadays, the proper interrogator doesn't leave marks - and in most cases, doesn't even leave memories. I wouldn't want a released prisoner to be able to tell his own superiors what he gave away. I want him to believe that he suffered isolation and deprivation for nothing (they never even asked me any questions!).

Your moral stance may, in extremis, be the same as those poor State Department fools who thought that breaking the Japanese Naval code was ungentlemanly and beneath them (we don't read other people's letters!).

Do you have any clue what I'm talking about? Nothing you just posted has anything to do with anything I've said in this thread.

No, I'm not. I'm simply not interested in it. I'm only interested in justice.

Alright, so if a man is human, then commits a crime he is no longer human by your definition. Torturing him at this point would be fine by your terms since he is no longer human. The trauma caused by torture, however, would greatly reduce the chances of his rehabilitation being successful. Would that be just for him? Then, after a jail term, most non-rehabilitated criminals would commit another crime. Is that just to the rest of the population (the 'humans')?

No.

If I were to commit such an act, then I, too, would become subhuman.

Please pay attention to what was written--one does not lose his humanity until the instant he commits (or attempts to commit) such an act. He is perfectly human up until that moment.

Incidentally, no one has ever bothered to actually refute my reasoning. You've just put forth arguments from emotion, which lack any actual substance.

I will not, because it is simply not true. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate as such.

Technically, then, I'm not human. I've done worse than interrogate people, many times.

So, am I human or not? I'm sure my children would argue the point with you.

Technically, then, I'm not human. I've done worse than interrogate people, many times.

So, am I human or not? I'm sure my children would argue the point with you.

Two questions:
1) What, exactly, did you do?
2) Were the "victims" of your actions themselves human (by the definition I'm using here, not by the popular--but wildly incorrect--definition)?

Also, why do you keep bringing up interrogation in your responses to me in this thread? Where have I said anything about interrogations? I'm becoming more and more convinced that you really have no idea what I'm talking about.

Alright, so if a man is human, then commits a crime he is no longer human by your definition. Torturing him at this point would be fine by your terms since he is no longer human. The trauma caused by torture, however, would greatly reduce the chances of his rehabilitation being successful. Would that be just for him?
It most certainly would.
Then, after a jail term,
There is no "after".

Torture should only be used for entertainment purposes only. And only if the victim can laugh about it someday.

Two questions:
1) What, exactly, did you do?
2) Were the "victims" of your actions themselves human (by the definition I'm using here, not by the popular--but wildly incorrect--definition)?

Also, why do you keep bringing up interrogation in your responses to me in this thread? Where have I said anything about interrogations? I'm becoming more and more convinced that you really have no idea what I'm talking about.

You're talking about torture. But you don't define it, so I'm taking it to the lowest possible level, which is usually what people really object to - forcible interrogation - the gathering of information from a person against their will.

If you're not talking about torture, then I need to go back and learn English again.

1. Killed people in combat.
2. Yes, they were human, but hardly victims. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

They didn't live long enough to be tortured, and they didn't really have a chance anyway, even though I let them shoot until I felt they were satisfied.

May I suggest you go back and read every post of mine in this thread, because I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at--and I think it's because you don't quite understand what I'm saying.