NationStates Jolt Archive

Since it's been a public secret that the U.S. government has adopted torture to its selection of "means to an end" by the order of the president, it may well be regulated. Recent examples of the use of torture have been especially shocking, as they show that torture has been used indiscriminately, or only for horsing around, or even without anything hinting towards that the victim has any information that the government wants.

What kind of regulations should be set, then, if we acknowledge the fact that US agents use torture?

Likewise, should it be used as a punishment? The US employs the death penalty, so why is mere incarceration considered interchangeable with the ultimate torture, killing? Acknowledging the fact that the state is confident that it can, without error, determine guilt, we see that the state could employ torture as well, if it already employs the death penalty. For example, should a pedophile get his nuts torn off with pliers without anaesthesia? Many people, if not the majority, consider this a just punishment.

EDIT: This is only for discussion beyond that standard "return to dark ages" and "it's always wrong" non-discussion. If that's all you can muster, don't.

I think torture should definitely be okayed for intelligence-gathering, depending on the case. Not, however, for confessions ("we'll take the scrotal clamps off if you agree to get sent down for life" is hardly going to elicit the unbiased truth now, is it?). And definitely not for punishment - I personally can see past this figurative eye-for-an-eye BS that's been the mainstay (it seems) of public opinion throughout history. I say rehabilitation or death/exile (if there's no chance of rehab).

Well this is slower than I anticipated.

Bump.

I think torture should definitely be okayed for intelligence-gathering, depending on the case.

But when, that's the question...

And definitely not for punishment - I personally can see past this figurative eye-for-an-eye BS that's been the mainstay (it seems) of public opinion throughout history. I say rehabilitation or death/exile (if there's no chance of rehab).
It needn't to be eye-for-an-eye. For example, Singapore employs caning.

But when, that's the question...

It needn't to be eye-for-an-eye. For example, Singapore employs caning.

Against POWs, and anyone who probably holds information which could save lives. How good are current techniques/technologies (however illegal) for determining a patient's truthfulness?

I'm against punishment in general. Rehab or death, is my motto.

I think torture should definitely be okayed for intelligence-gathering.so if the Yugoslav, Afghan or Iraqui got a US guy... would it be ok to torture him?

Singapore employs caning.I like their Justice customs.

I think it needs to be pointed out that the US isnt the only industrialized nation to use tourture.
Do you REALLY think that the UK (random example) doesnt occasionaly attach electrodes to certain sensitive parts of peoples bodies to encourage them a bit?
Or perhaps you should focus on China, and its wonderful policies regarding these issues.

so if the Yugoslav, Afghan or Iraqui got a US personell...If would be ok to torture him?

Hazard of the job.

Sometimes you just need to have faith that you're on the right side. No action is inherently good or evil; only intent and consequence decide this, IMHO. Thus, if torture reveals intelligence which saves lives, it is a good act.

The biggest problem with all this is the definition of "torture". As of late, many people have come to treat humiliation as "torture". The Abu Ghraib "scandal" is a prime example of this. Personally, I think including humiliation under the definition of "torture" is ridiculous.

Should your mother/father been brought up on war crimes charges when they yelled at you in the middle of the mall/store? I'll bet that if that has happened to you (and that would include 99% of us), I'd bet it was a pretty humiliating experience. Was it "torture"? No.

I know that's not an exactly parallel example, but it's similar enough to make the point.

I think the jail terms for convicted torturers... should match the crime. For example, if a guy mashes seven toes with a ball peen hammer? Then the value of the toe should be weighted (for relative importance to the individual) and multiplied by seven, added with any conditional modifiers like +3 versus vampires etc, and then used in an algorithm to determine the amount of ass rapes in prison the torturer should receive (max).

torture is unnecessary for obtaining information anyway.. since there is truth serum out there, and its real, not a myth, its been around for quite some time now.

so its unnecessary for info... but im sure its a lot of fun to torture these heartless and brainless criminals who rape, and murder.... its oked from me for punishment!!! more painful than 3 needles for the death penalty, i think.

I think the jail terms for convicted torturers... should match the crime. For example, if a guy mashes seven toes with a ball peen hammer? Then the value of the toe should be weighted (for relative importance to the individual) and multiplied by seven, added with any conditional modifiers like +3 versus vampires etc, and then used in an algorithm to determine the amount of ass rapes in prison the torturer should receive (max).

Of course, on his release he would be granted a +1 Ring of Fire as a parole condition, yes? :p :p

I think torture should definitely be okayed for intelligence-gathering, depending on the case. Not, however, for confessions ("we'll take the scrotal clamps off if you agree to get sent down for life" is hardly going to elicit the unbiased truth now, is it?). And definitely not for punishment - I personally can see past this figurative eye-for-an-eye BS that's been the mainstay (it seems) of public opinion throughout history. I say rehabilitation or death/exile (if there's no chance of rehab).

Torture for intelligence gathering has all the same flaws as torture for confessions.

I. "We'll take the scrotal clamps off if you tell us where to find your boss."
P. "He's at 240 Saddam Road"
...1 hour later.
I. "That was a hotel full of journalists we just blew up at 240 Saddam Road. I mean, thanks and all, but we're looking for your boss. Back in the clamps"
P. "Did you say Saddam Road? I said 240 Saddam Avenue."
1 hour later "That was an empty flophouse."
P. "Too slow man. You snooze you loose. Torture me all you want, I have no idea where they went."

Of course, on his release he would be granted a +1 Ring of Fire as a parole condition, yes? :p :p

wait wait are we going by the 1986 second edition Constitution rules? That's what it sounds like you're doing. No wait they don't even have a +1 ROF, theres only the +2 that comes with the Helm of Dilgaraoth! WTF MAN GODMODER THIS GAME SUCKS IM GOING HOME.

Besides being utterly digusting, torture is inefficient and in many cases utterly useless. After a certain point, the victim is going to say ANYTHING s/he thinks you want to hear in order to get you to stop, whether it is true or not.

Besides being utterly digusting, torture is inefficient and in many cases utterly useless. After a certain point, the victim is going to say ANYTHING s/he thinks you want to hear in order to get you to stop, whether it is true or not.

certainly, you are talking about torture for information..which is no longer neccesary b/c of truth serum.. how about torture for haneous crimes such as rape 1st degree murder, serial killing, kidnappings and child abductions? in these cases, torture is retaliatory.. a just punishment for those who deserve no less than excrutiating pain for their terrible acts...


if more rapists new that if they were caught, they would have their ball cut out, jammed in their mouth, and their lips sewed shut. their could be a decrease in rape.. idk since there is no previous testing of this sort of thing, i cant give you stats, but it makes perfect sense to me.,

I think it needs to be pointed out that the US isnt the only industrialized nation to use tourture.
Do you REALLY think that the UK (random example) doesnt occasionaly attach electrodes to certain sensitive parts of peoples bodies to encourage them a bit?
Or perhaps you should focus on China, and its wonderful policies regarding these issues.

That's the Bush apologists for you. Always setting the bar just a little bit higher.

The United States of America:
We're Not Any Worse Than Maoist China

if more rapists new that if they were caught, they would have their ball cut out, jammed in their mouth, and their lips sewed shut. their could be a decrease in rape.. idk since there is no previous testing of this sort of thing, i cant give you stats, but it makes perfect sense to me.,

When the founders wrote the constitution they knew damn well from very recent memory that torture is useful neither for crime prevention nor information gathering as well as being just plain evil. That's why they banned them in the Constitution.

People who think about the penalties of their crimes don't commit them. No one wants to go to prison except a handful of people who've been there for the last 20 years and don't know any other kind of life.

The stats show that the death penalty doesn't discourage murder, why would torture discourage crime in general?

Torture for intelligence gathering has all the same flaws as torture for confessions.

I. "We'll take the scrotal clamps off if you tell us where to find your boss."
P. "He's at 240 Saddam Road"
...1 hour later.
I. "That was a hotel full of journalists we just blew up at 240 Saddam Road. I mean, thanks and all, but we're looking for your boss. Back in the clamps"
P. "Did you say Saddam Road? I said 240 Saddam Avenue."
1 hour later "That was an empty flophouse."
P. "Too slow man. You snooze you loose. Torture me all you want, I have no idea where they went."
Scrotum clamps aren't shit. Get out a rusty hacksaw and start sawing off his penis. Let him know that if he gives a wrong answer and blow up the wrong place, we come back and saw off the whole thing.

I'd bet good money he'd spill his guts in a nanosecond.

wait wait are we going by the 1986 second edition Constitution rules? That's what it sounds like you're doing. No wait they don't even have a +1 ROF, theres only the +2 that comes with the Helm of Dilgaraoth! WTF MAN GODMODER THIS GAME SUCKS IM GOING HOME.
/me falls over laughing

torture is unnecessary for obtaining information anyway.. since there is truth serum out there, and its real, not a myth, its been around for quite some time now.
I agree that psychoactives should be use in conjunction with intimidation, humiliation and sensory deprivation. The problem is that the lefties decry even psychoactives as "torture".

That's what I mean about the definition of "torture" in my initial post on this thread."

certainly, you are talking about torture for information..which is no longer neccesary b/c of truth serum.. how about torture for haneous crimes such as rape 1st degree murder, serial killing, kidnappings and child abductions? in these cases, torture is retaliatory.. a just punishment for those who deserve no less than excrutiating pain for their terrible acts...

"Truth serum" isn't all its cracked up to be. Sodium Pentathol and its realitives are seditive-hypnotics. Specificly, they are barbiturates.

Sedatives don't guarente a person will tell the truth. They simply make a person relax by supressing the central nervous system. Generally, the subject is going to say a lot but none of it will be usefull. Its like talking to someone who is half asleep.

Torture as punishment? Its not something that I would support. It is pointless. An eye for an eye should only apply when the victim is a nobleman. A monetary fine is good enough for everyone else.

Against POWs, and anyone who probably holds information which could save lives. How good are current techniques/technologies (however illegal) for determining a patient's truthfulness?

I'm against punishment in general. Rehab or death, is my motto.

A bit harsh, hmm. Don't forget punishment can serve as a deterrent, though not the way the sit in jail and watch TV these days. For some, thats a step up. They get three hots and flop, plus Jerry Springer. :rolleyes:

Torture for intelligence gathering has all the same flaws as torture for confessions.

I. "We'll take the scrotal clamps off if you tell us where to find your boss."
P. "He's at 240 Saddam Road"
...1 hour later.
I. "That was a hotel full of journalists we just blew up at 240 Saddam Road. I mean, thanks and all, but we're looking for your boss. Back in the clamps"
P. "Did you say Saddam Road? I said 240 Saddam Avenue."
1 hour later "That was an empty flophouse."
P. "Too slow man. You snooze you loose. Torture me all you want, I have no idea where they went."

This is correct - torture is basically flawed, if you torture someone and they give you information, then it is likely to be either false - or, because they gave it up so easily, it is irrellevent. The 'professional' captives e.g. (for the sake of argument) spies will give up no information. Case in point - Female SOE officers in WWII tortured by the gestapo, never gave away a secret, in 2-3 years of confinement in Germany. So whatever information you get, it is unlikely to be useful.
The best way to extract information would be to threaten someone who is important to the torturee, they would be able to stand torture on someone else much less than on themselves.
Or, just stick with truth serum, it makes less mess

The best way to get reliable information from POWs is to convince them to defect. Don't torture. Instead offer amenities. Be their friends. Let them live the good life at your expense. The only thing you ask in return is a little information. What's a little information between friends?

The fact that this thread exists makes me sick. I thought people learn from history - apparently not. Hmph. :mad:

Ein Deutscher']The fact that this thread exists makes me sick. I thought people learn from history - apparently not. Hmph. :mad:

Most of the people who advocate this kind of thing are no better than murderers themselves. I would say inhuman but sadly, needless, pointless and wanton brutality is indeed a human trait.

The pathetic induviduals who advocate the use of torture might benifit from being shown...dramatically...just what they are proposing. I've never yet met a sadist yet who actually enjoys recieving what they claim to like doing to others. They talk big, they push out their chests and act cruel, but they are scared children at heart.

Not one of them is worth the time and effort of educating. They should simply be institutionalized and treated for their obvious mental imbalances. Perhaps they could one day learn to live as men, instead of dogs.

Those who actually have some experience in the Intel community don't advocate this stuff. They do use it sometimes, but they know what they are doing is horrible, and do it out of duty and need. Do it too often and one no longer feels for the victims; but that is still very different from the savage fools who long to have others suffer at their hand.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic. A reminder of the dregs of humanity, the ones who cannot look up at the sun. The ones we all know exist but can't bring ourselves to admit to, the ones we fear we might be ourselves.

Most of the people who advocate this kind of thing are no better than murderers themselves.

Surely someone who tortures another to gain intelligence which hypothetically saves countless lives is noble? For they are sacrificing their own morals and views in order to protect others. And in the end, IMHO identity is the most valuable thing we own.

Most of the people who advocate this kind of thing are no better than murderers themselves. I would say inhuman but sadly, needless, pointless and wanton brutality is indeed a human trait.

The pathetic induviduals who advocate the use of torture might benifit from being shown...dramatically...just what they are proposing. I've never yet met a sadist yet who actually enjoys recieving what they claim to like doing to others. They talk big, they push out their chests and act cruel, but they are scared children at heart.

Not one of them is worth the time and effort of educating. They should simply be institutionalized and treated for their obvious mental imbalances. Perhaps they could one day learn to live as men, instead of dogs.

Those who actually have some experience in the Intel community don't advocate this stuff. They do use it sometimes, but they know what they are doing is horrible, and do it out of duty and need. Do it too often and one no longer feels for the victims; but that is still very different from the savage fools who long to have others suffer at their hand.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic. A reminder of the dregs of humanity, the ones who cannot look up at the sun. The ones we all know exist but can't bring ourselves to admit to, the ones we fear we might be ourselves.

Well said.

Well said.

I disagree. It's generalisation, which doesn't take into account the fact that one person's life isn't worth as much as multiple peoples' lives. One person revealing intelligence under torture which saves multiple lives is a net gain. It also seems to imply that those advocating controlled use of torture (the subject of this thread being the boundaries of those controls) somehow enjoy the act of torture, when in reality it is seen as a necessary evil.

I disagree. It's generalisation, which doesn't take into account the fact that one person's life isn't worth as much as multiple peoples' lives. One person revealing intelligence under torture which saves multiple lives is a net gain. It also seems to imply that those advocating controlled use of torture (the subject of this thread being the boundaries of those controls) somehow enjoy the act of torture, when in reality it is seen as a necessary evil.

You disagree? Strange. Because I mention very specifically that there are those who do commit acts of toruture within the intel community; a community that I respect.

I make the distinction that there are those who commit torture, who can do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and those who ADVOCATE torture. Very different things. Advocating the use of brutality against those who are helpless in your custody is a very different thing indeed. Do you not see the difference?

One group recognizes that torture can sometimes be a horrible, but needed tool for use in the defense of innocent lives. Something to be used only in the most dire and hopeless of situations, when all other options have failed.

The other group advocates using torture on prisoners, detainees, human beings. This groups WANTS to use torture, feels that its use is somehow positive. These people are sociopaths. No better than criminals.

There is something wrong with their brain if that person actually wants to see other human beings suffer! Advocates of torture want to see torture used. No self-respecting, right-minded Intel agent would say that. Those who understand the implications of the use of brutality would never ask to see more of it; those who do have failed to understand the basic need for humanity even in the dark recesses of the intel commmunity.

They understand it is used, yes. They can see situations where it must be used. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a crime against humanity; those using it bear that burden for the rest of their lives!

They, in the defense of innocent lives and the lives of their comrades, did the worst thing imaginable to another human being. They bear the pain and the shame of that knowledge for the rest of their lives, it can crush the human soul, leave that person a withered husk! Those who are advocating torture are asking that these induviduals suffer all the more...I cannot believe someone would ask for that in good conciense.

No sane person would actually want more torture, no sane induvidual would want it legalized. Regulated or not, its a crime against humanity, something to be regretted for the rest of your days, something you do ONLY because you cannot find another way out.

...Oy. I killed the thread.

No sane person would actually want more torture, no sane induvidual would want it legalized. Regulated or not, its a crime against humanity, something to be regretted for the rest of your days, something you do ONLY because you cannot find another way out.

An act which causes more good than harm is a good act, IMHO. Therefore torture, when used (I agree as a last resort) to extract intelligence from a suspect which then saves lives, is a good act. There is a bad part and a good part, and the good outweighs the bad. And I see no reason to "regret it for the rest of your days" - regret that you have the resolve to carry out actions which seem distasteful yet are in the country/world's best interests?

PS: Me needing sleep killed this thread too ^_~