NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that there can be any excuse for torure in the modern world?

Please hear my arguement before you flame me.

The reason i bring it up is i just watched a tv program (made by the BBC) that lloked at different cases of torture and aswell as talking to the victims it talked to the perpetrators, what i got from this program is there are instances where torure can be acceptable and useful. For example it talked to british intelligence officers who used pyscological torture against IRA members, in doing this they gained enough information to bring to jutice a large number of terrorists in londondery. Although their methods were harsh it would have saved the lives of countless civilians and british army personel that these terrorists would have been planning to harm. Another area where it has proved effective is israel in stopping suicide bombers.

I fully accept that torture should not be common however if used with restrictions e.g. only against terrorist suspects, if the suspect dies the tortureer is punished for murder (preventig extreme brutality) then it can work.

I think it should only be used in situations where groups are out to harm civilians e.g. terrorists in iraq today. I dont however think it shoul be used in war.

I accept that these views will be incredibly unpopular but before you flame me just think about my arguement. Im not saying im right im just wondering what you think.

I fully accept that torture should not be common however if used with restrictions e.g. only against terrorist suspects, if the suspect dies the tortureer is punished for murder (preventig extreme brutality) then it can work.

The word in bold destroys your argument if you stop to think about it a second.

I don't accept torture in any situation.
I'm not saying it couldn't work. I mean executing every
drug user propably lowers drug use, but I'm not 'ready' to
do that.

Oh, and there is this "what if they are innocent"

To clarify. I cannot figure a situation where
I would beleive torture being the answer.

ok it will never be 100% perfect but im not for hugely barbaric methods like electrocution and killing them, i think more psycological methods should be used. I admit it will be hugely uncomfortable for the recipients but i dont think anything that will leave lasting damage should be used just incase you have the wrong man and he doesnt know anything

If torture could have been used before 9/11 to prevent a number of saudis boarding american planes dont you think it would have been worth it. That the suffering of one person to provide the information would be validated

torture gives me a stiffy

ok it will never be 100% perfect but im not for hugely barbaric methods like electrocution and killing them, i think more psycological methods should be used. I admit it will be hugely uncomfortable for the recipients but i dont think anything that will leave lasting damage should be used just incase you have the wrong man and he doesnt know anything

Anything that would even come close to being defined as 'torture' is something you simply cannot justify using against an innocent person. And most justice systems these days incorprate some concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Something I REALLY wouldn't want to get rid of.

So, you couldn't torture a person for information until you already KNEW they were guilty... and let's face it, by the time you've already got enough information to have reached that point it's unlikely you're going to have any remaining need to torture them.

If torture could have been used before 9/11 to prevent a number of saudis boarding american planes dont you think it would have been worth it. That the suffering of one person to provide the information would be validated

Suppose 100 individuals were tortured for information, and out of them all only 3 actually had any intimate knowledge of the details of the attack; the other 97 were completely ignorant of the plan. Would you say that the torture of 97 innocent people in order to save the lives of several thousand others is justified?

I dont think it should be used against criminals only terrorists e.g. al queda, ira, etc. I also dont think it should be used against soldiers in legitimate wars. It should only be used on people where you have proof of them being involved in terrorism and believe they may hold more information

I dont think it should be used against criminals only terrorists e.g. al queda, ira, etc. I also dont think it should be used against soldiers in legitimate wars. It should only be used on people where you have proof of them being involved in terrorism and believe they may hold more information
You don't understand why we don't use torture. If you think about it for a moment, generally dealing with how you get the torture to stop, it should come to you.



(hint: You'll do anything to make him stop, including 'making shit up')

CSW i agree with you there with physical torture but if you used mental torture e.g. lots of white noise, lack of sleep, pressure positions then you would break down the mental barriers until he told you everything he knew without even realising it (it was done this way against americans in north korea where there are tapes of apparently normal soldiers (uningured looking healthy) telling the north koreans everything they know. This process would take longer and more skill to accomplish however the information gained would be more reliable.