NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.
What is it that makes you believe you can get accurate information from him through the use of torture?

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.

Okay, now say that you aren't sure that this person is connected to the plot- you only have unreliable sources telling you that they think he is. Do you torture him then?

What is it that makes you believe you can get accurate information from him through the use of torture?
US intelligence, CIA, NSA , etc..

US intelligence, CIA, NSA , etc..Basically the same people who told us that Iraq had WMD...and they even could pin-point their location.

What is it that makes you believe you can get accurate information from him through the use of torture?
It's worth a try. If he knows that telling a lie and causing the deaths of who knows how many people will cause him to be castrated, have his hands and feet amputated, his eyes put out, his toung removed and his eardrums punctured with hot soldering irons and then his still-living body put on display as an example to others he might cooperate to save himself the agony and the lifetime of sensory deprivation.

US intelligence, CIA, NSA , etc..

Wow!!!


I don't think I would torture anybody...

Okay, now say that you aren't sure that this person is connected to the plot- you only have unreliable sources telling you that they think he is. Do you torture him then?
No, I don't think I would.

Ok, so far people have asked me to clarify my position, but I haven't gotten answers about what others would do.

No, I don't think I would.

I'm iffy on that. I don't think the end justifies the means . . . but if it were a tight deadline . . . I don't know which way I'd go.

I assume you meant to edit your post, not quote it, OceanDrive.

In that specific situation, where I knew there was a bomb and I knew this guy planted it, then I probably would. Of course, there is still the question of "How do you know you're getting accurate information from torture?"

Anyone know anything about hypnosis?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I assume you meant to edit your post, not quote it, OceanDrive.

In that specific situation, where I knew there was a bomb and I knew this guy planted it, then I probably would. Of course, there is still the question of "How do you know you're getting accurate information from torture?"

Anyone know anything about hypnosis?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
From what I've heard about hypnosis the subject must be willing to be hypnotized.

I would- and with no remorse. I'd pull a pair of panties right over his head-and after he spilled his guts, I'd leave them on him for a minute or two longer, just cause I'm cruel and unusual.

What about sodium pentathol?

I assume you meant to edit your post, not quote it, OceanDrive.

In that specific situation, where I knew there was a bomb and I knew this guy planted it, then I probably would. Of course, there is still the question of "How do you know you're getting accurate information from torture?"

Anyone know anything about hypnosis?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
can you hypnotize an unwilling subject?

I assume you meant to edit your post, not quote it, OceanDrive.

In that specific situation, where I knew there was a bomb and I knew this guy planted it, then I probably would. Of course, there is still the question of "How do you know you're getting accurate information from torture?"

Anyone know anything about hypnosis?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Good stuff,
I would be willing to try Hypnosis...

Because if he was wrongly accused...at least I would have no blood on my hands.

BTW...thx about the quote thing.

Sure, I would. His problem, not mine.

It's worth a try. If he knows that telling a lie and causing the deaths of who knows how many people will cause him to be castrated, have his hands and feet amputated, his eyes put out, his toung removed and his eardrums punctured with hot soldering irons and then his still-living body put on display as an example to others he might cooperate to save himself the agony and the lifetime of sensory deprivation.
But if he's the sort of terrorist who really believes in his cause, and if he thinks that you might do those things anyway, even if he tells the truth, or that you're too weak to go ahead with your threat, then he might just stay silent or lie, secure in the knowledge that millions of his enemies will die.

Some people REALLY don't like the U.S. :(

What about sodium pentathol?


:confused: Sod...what??

What is it that makes you believe you can get accurate information from him through the use of torture?
If they have the information, they will give it up through torture. Thus it becomes a question of whether or not they know anything. If they don't they will give up false information in hopes of appeasing you.

But if he's the sort of terrorist who really believes in his cause, and if he thinks that you might do those things anyway, even if he tells the truth, or that you're too weak to go ahead with your threat, then he might just stay silent or lie, secure in the knowledge that millions of his enemies will die.

Some people REALLY don't like the U.S. :(
There are worse things than death. Once you start removing body parts I think almost anyone will start talking.

:confused: Sod...what??
Truth serum, isn't it?

Would I? Sure; given the right situation (that scenerio is a tad vague after all). Would I submit myself to judicial review later? Damn straight.

After all, I just tortured someone; I need to be brought to justice, I need to prove my case that it was justified. Even if that justice is a trial and release because it was justified, I commited a crime.

Its like the Police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty; you pull them off active service pending official review. Sometimes horrible things are needed to be done; but that doesn't mean we don't have safegaurds against them being done for the wrong reasons.

I think perhaps this is glossed over too much in the media. People are lauded for their exploits in the name of duty, but duty encompasses more than just getting away with murder because you have more important things to do than worry about one person's life. Its more than just a license to kill; its an obligation to place yourself within the law to uphold it.

:confused: Sod...what??
So-called "truth serum". A site I found from Google says it makes the subject very uninhibited (so they talk), but also very suggestible (so unless you're very careful, they say what you lead them to say). Not a great method for actually extracting new information.

Truth serum, isn't it?
Yep. You don't need to torture him. Just inject him with sodium pentathol and ask where the bomb is.

:confused: Sod...what??
Babble juice. Basically an inefficient truth serum.

would you approve the use of torture?

no.

not in any circumstance

If they have the information, they will give it up through torture. Thus it becomes a question of whether or not they know anything. If they don't they will give up false information in hopes of appeasing you.
How do you tell the difference between a suspect who is trying to appease you with false information, and a suspect you haven't broken yet who is lying to you?

There are worse things than death. Once you start removing body parts I think almost anyone will start talking.
A cost-benefit analysis based on certain Islamic doctrines on the reward for martyrdom while engaged in battle against the enemies of "true Islam" suggests this may not be true. These guys are promised a LOT after death by their imams.

No torture, but I'd use drugs in a heartbeat.

A cost-benefit analysis based on certain Islamic doctrines on the reward for martyrdom while engaged in battle against the enemies of "true Islam" suggests this may not be true. These guys are promised a LOT after death by their imams.
That's why you don't threaten them with death, but with a long, humiliating and agonizing life. Plus a nice bath in pig's blood doesn't hurt.

Babble juice. Basically an inefficient truth serum.
There is an efficient one?

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.


damn right i would

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.
Torture might be justifiable if torture was a method that actually worked.

pump him full of truth serum

(i forget the compound that's generally used but it worked in True Lies... hehe)

I think the best bet would be real drugs. LSD, heroin, something of the sort. I work in an emergency room, and OD's always tell me way more than they should about all sorts of stuff I don't want to know.

That's why you don't threaten them with death, but with a long, humiliating and agonizing life. Plus a nice bath in pig's blood doesn't hurt.


dont forget the pork high collonic

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.

How exactly would you know 1) That this person is a terrorist?, 2) That he carried a nuclear device?, and 3) That it is somewhere in a major city?, without also knowing the specifics of which city and where the drop location was? The only way I can think of that you would know all three of those things would be if you already had someone who confessed and/or acted as double agent. But if you had those things, I find it hard to believe that you would also not have the other information.

In short, you're asking a loaded question here. The very premises you ask me to accept also yield the conclusion that I'd have enough info that would render torture pointless.

How exactly would you know 1) That this person is a terrorist?, 2) That he carried a nuclear device?, and 3) That it is somewhere in a major city?, without also knowing the specifics of which city and where the drop location was? The only way I can think of that you would know all three of those things would be if you already had someone who confessed and/or acted as double agent. But if you had those things, I find it hard to believe that you would also not have the other information.

In short, you're asking a loaded question here. The very premises you ask me to accept also yield the conclusion that I'd have enough info that would render torture pointless.
I'm not trying to lead anyone to any conclusions. I'm just asking if anyone condems torture under all circumstances, or if everyone is willing to get their hands dirty under some circumstances.

what about sodium amytol?

can you hypnotize an unwilling subject?
nope

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.

you shouldnt torture people. and this situation would never arise, but to humour you....

firstly, if this guy was trying to change the way you go about stuff, to make you more like the murderous, torturing swine he is, then descending to the level he is at is a victory fo him. second if hes the kind of guy who says hes planted a nuke but hes not telling you where it is, then hes not going to tell you at all, as he is evidently devoted to his cause enough to kill lots of people. thrid, he could just be a homeless man who didnt realise you sanctioned torture who thiought you might just put him in a cell. unlikely yes, but equally as unlikely as the guy who planted the bomb turning himself in and admitting to it.

I'm not trying to lead anyone to any conclusions. I'm just asking if anyone condems torture under all circumstances, or if everyone is willing to get their hands dirty under some circumstances.

My apologies. I wasn't trying to imply you were trying to lead people with the way you were asking the question, so much as to point out that I don't think there is a plausible way you could set up such a scenario.

Obviously, it follows from the fact that because I think your hypothetical scenario doesn't work, I can't justify torture within that context. Of course, I wouldn't justify torture in any context, but this is just one more example.

Ok, let's say you have in custody a terrorist who has planted a small nuclear bomb somewhere in a major city. He's not saying where the bomb is, and you have limited time to evacuate the site and try to disarm the bomb. Would you torture the terrorist to get the information?

I would. The lives saved would justify torture of one individual.
I would not. In the unlikely event that I had "custody" of my very own pet terrorist, I would not know how to begin torturing him, nor would the thought occur to me. I would give him over to authorities.