NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

Use it.

To clarify my vote, I think it should not be legal, but the law should be broken.

The hypothetical is entirely stupid; torture has been shown numerous times to be ineffective and unreliable.

The OP and all the right-wing nutjobs who pose said hypothetical are made of fail.

Hasn't this topic been done to death already?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544081

Torture is unnecessary because it breeds unreliable information.

A better way is to infiltrate the guy's terrorist organisation, get really high up in the ranks, have him show you how to defuse the bomb, then kill him and do it just before the timer hits zero. The life of at least one hot chick must also hang in the balance.

The hypothetical is entirely stupid; torture has been shown numerous times to be ineffective and unreliable.

The OP and all the right-wing nutjobs who pose said hypothetical are made of fail.

Stupid or not, it is only hypothetical. Like "what if the giant slugs from Mars would kill your dog". Are you the one who replies "fail!!!!!!! no slugs on Mars, would have seen them in big telescope, rantrant..."?

Hasn't this topic been done to death already?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544081

quite recently too...well, either it has juice left or not.

N00bity is a bitch...but I promise not to bump it, mmkay?

I come from a country where violence is commonplace...
Not to mention my sadistic and psychopathic tendencies.
What do you think is going to happen?

I come from a country where violence is commonplace...
Not to mention my sadistic and psychopathic tendencies.
What do you think is going to happen?

I don't know...you'll keep taking your medicine?

No, absolutely not.

No.
Seriously, using torture is wrong, period.

I don't know...you'll keep taking your medicine?

*swallows pills*
Uh, what?

It all depends on who's fronting that day really.
One would end up crying, the other would try to think her way out and if 3 actually was up, well... it'd be messy.

Stupid or not, it is only hypothetical. Like "what if the giant slugs from Mars would kill your dog". Are you the one who replies "fail!!!!!!! no slugs on Mars, would have seen them in big telescope, rantrant..."?

What context is this hypothetical invoked?

Sensible person: Torture should be illegal
Dumbass: No, it should be legal!!! Terrorists!
Sensible person: No, it's completely ineffective, and we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level.
Dumbass presents the hypothetical.


The entire purpose of this hypothetical is invariably to justify torture. If the example of the giant slugs was used as an argument to bomb mars, I'd say that it was stupid, too.

*swallows pills*
Uh, what?

It all depends on who's fronting that day really.
One would end up crying, the other would try to think her way out and if 3 actually was up, well... it'd be messy.

How exactly is this an answer to the question whether torture should be LEGAL IF SUPER-VERY IMPORTANT?

Which is the OP question.

What context is this hypothetical invoked?

Sensible person: Torture should be illegal
Dumbass: No, it should be legal!!! Terrorists!
Sensible person: No, it's completely ineffective, and we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level.
Dumbass presents the hypothetical.


The entire purpose of this hypothetical is invariably to justify torture. If the example of the giant slugs was used as an argument to bomb mars, I'd say that it was stupid, too.

What does the context matter? There is very little chance you'll be turned into a flag-waving pro-torture activist. Or what?

How exactly is this an answer to the question whether torture should be LEGAL IF SUPER-VERY IMPORTANT?

Which is the OP question.


Ah, I got mixed up with the other torture thread, which asked "would you".

Should torture be legal? No.

Might one engage in it under certain circumstances: depends on the individual.

The hypothetical is entirely stupid; torture has been shown numerous times to be ineffective and unreliable.

The OP and all the right-wing nutjobs who pose said hypothetical are made of fail.

Not so hypothetical and ineffective any more.
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/politics/20071211_ap_newdetailsinciawaterboarding.html

According to the former agent, waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.

Nein zu Folter.

What does the context matter? There is very little chance you'll be turned into a flag-waving pro-torture activist. Or what?

It matters because the law should not allow for torture, ever, but people try to support it with this impossible hypothetical.

The problem is, even though the hypothetical is impossible, it would be used to justify torturing somebody. It's not a matter of if it would happen, but of when.

Somebody will just know, without evidence or due process, that a suspect is guilty, so they'll torture them for information. Or even when the suspect is guilty, they'll lie, because people who are tortured almost invariably will tell the torturer what they want to hear.

That's why it matters.

Not so hypothetical and ineffective any more.
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/politics/20071211_ap_newdetailsinciawaterboarding.html
Fail.

This is compared to how many people who have been tortured and either not spoken or admitted to things that weren't true?

Any idea how many people who admitted, under the torture administered by religious nuts, to being witches? Every single one of them was a false-positive!

Sure, there are some successes, but you have to weigh them against the plethora of false-positives and people who don't break at all.

It matters because the law should not allow for torture, ever, but people try to support it with this impossible hypothetical.

The problem is, even though the hypothetical is impossible, it would be used to justify torturing somebody. It's not a matter of if it would happen, but of when.

Somebody will just know, without evidence or due process, that a suspect is guilty, so they'll torture them for information. Or even when the suspect is guilty, they'll lie, because people who are tortured almost invariably will tell the torturer what they want to hear.

That's why it matters.

I agree. But I still think a hypothetical should be dealt with, even if it is annoying. Even if human rights dogma demands certain answers.

Before we go any farther, can we define torture?

We seem to think that it's using physical discomfort in an attempt to get people to give information. Then again, just holding them in a jail cell is physical discomfort, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Can anyone define the line for me where it's torture and where it's not?

Before we go any farther, can we define torture?

We seem to think that it's using physical discomfort in an attempt to get people to give information. Then again, just holding them in a jail cell is physical discomfort, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Can anyone define the line for me where it's torture and where it's not?

I think it is rather undefined, for political reasons. In the hypothetical scenario under discussion, I would define torture as infliction of very much discomfort. Including waterboarding, of course.

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

So if it's part of a lawful sanction, then it's not torture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"

????????????


I wonder when that last bit was added? veryinteresting.

That's in there, I believe, so that the UN can put trade sanctions upon countries that misbehave, which causes poverty-- and, by extension, some suffering-- without it being torture.

I think. I'm not an expert on international law.

That's in there, I believe, so that the UN can put trade sanctions upon countries that misbehave, which causes poverty-- and, by extension, some suffering-- without it being torture.

I think. I'm not an expert on international law.

So now we're going to say that some governmental organizations can inflict pain and others can't? What is the criteria? More importantly, who gets to make the criteria?

So now we're going to say that some governmental organizations can inflict pain and others can't? What is the criteria? More importantly, who gets to make the criteria?

Come now, you can't be that ignorant of international law.

We're going to say that trade sanctions are a good way to attempt to resolve conflicts without getting into a war, and that, while unfortunate, the fact that it fucks over the people in the country with the sanctions is far less bad than it would be to have a war in that country.
Furthermore, when sanctions are imposed, there are typically provisions to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the inhabitants of the country by still allowing shipments of food and other basic necessities.

Come now, you can't be that ignorant of international law.

We're going to say that trade sanctions are a good way to attempt to resolve conflicts without getting into a war, and that, while unfortunate, the fact that it fucks over the people in the country with the sanctions is far less bad than it would be to have a war in that country.
Furthermore, when sanctions are imposed, there are typically provisions to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the inhabitants of the country by still allowing shipments of food and other basic necessities.

That wasn't what I was getting at. I'm trying to say that it sounds like it's okay for the UN to inflict pain and suffering but not the US (or other countries). According to who? The UN?

That's in there, I believe, so that the UN can put trade sanctions upon countries that misbehave, which causes poverty-- and, by extension, some suffering-- without it being torture.

I think. I'm not an expert on international law.

or on a local standpoint... solitary confinement can be mental torture to some, but allowed due to penal codes that allow Solitary as a form of punishment.

same as the use of straightjackets and other such restraints. (as long as they are properly used and applied to prevent physical harm to the wearer.)

so question. would forcing a person suffering from claustrophobia into a 10 by 10 cell be considered torture?

or on a local standpoint... solitary confinement can be mental torture to some, but allowed due to penal codes that allow Solitary as a form of punishment.

same as the use of straightjackets and other such restraints. (as long as they are properly used and applied to prevent physical harm to the wearer.)

so question. would forcing a person suffering from claustrophobia into a 10 by 10 cell be considered torture?

It should be. But according to that UN document it is not, if it is legal :confused:

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

First we should make it permissible to use public money for religious use if the god in question shows up and demonstrates his willingness and capability to destroy whatever government is unwilling to use said money for said church.

Then we should overturn the ban on using LSD on the moon in cases where astronauts on the moon have been injected with a deadly toxin whose only known antidote is LSD (note I would never suggest overturning the ban on LSD use, even in cases of injection of LSDtreatable lethal toxins of extraterrestrial origin, on Earth. It's a bad message to our children.)

Then we should overturn the ban detonating nuclear devices within the United States in cases where a subterranean nuclear explosion would help prevent an upcoming volcanic eruption in the middle of the continent which would destroy all of North America.

Then we should overturn the laws against prostitution in cases where really hot celebrities go nuts and offer strangers millions of dollars to have sex with them. I'll be so pissed if that's still illegal when Kate Beckinsale makes that offer to me.

Then we should reserve space for the other thousand events that are more likely than the one you describe.

Before we go any farther, can we define torture?

We seem to think that it's using physical discomfort in an attempt to get people to give information. Then again, just holding them in a jail cell is physical discomfort, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Can anyone define the line for me where it's torture and where it's not?

This is a personal definition of torture:

If it is extreme physical or psychological discomfort that is directly intended to cause agony and suffering to an individual, then it is torture. If it is less extreme, less direct physical or psychological discomfort then it is interrogation or prison.

In this case extreme would be referring to creating abnormally high levels of stress and pain in an individual. Making a room chilly and creating a generally stressful environment doesn’t seem nearly as extreme or direct as putting someone in a stress position or cattle prodding them.

Basically, if people experience levels of discomfort that they encounter regularly (chilly room, wobbly chair, leading questions, reasonably small spaces) then it is not torture. Putting someone in a cell creates a lot of discomfort and stress, but it is indirect and it isn't intended to cause sheer agony.

Solitary confinement is probably standing right on the line between torture and prison. On one hand it is intentionally used to cause suffering, on the other hand complete darkness and a small space aren't exactly abnormal situations (although being in them for long periods of time might be seen as such). It really depends on exactly what the solitary confinement cell is like in that individual prison. However, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to call it torture under this definition.

Furthermore, during interrogation one is allowed to have a lawyer present and a prisoner can not be held indefinitely (until recently if in the U.S.). That means that charges have to be filed and soon after, the prosecution has to go to court and convict the prisoner (until recently if in the U.S.). Even then, there are mandatory limits placed on sentences and appeals can be filed. Torture is hopeless and the one being tortured is put at the complete mercy of their torturer. Prison provides chances for one to get out of the situation and allows the prisoners legal representation and time in a courtroom (until recently if in the U.S.).

Comparing torture and interrogation is like comparing sending a child to their room for 30 minutes and severely beating said child indefinitely, the blurry line between the two could probably be compared to spanking the child.

It matters because the law should not allow for torture, ever, but people try to support it with this impossible hypothetical.

The problem is, even though the hypothetical is impossible, it would be used to justify torturing somebody. It's not a matter of if it would happen, but of when.

Somebody will just know, without evidence or due process, that a suspect is guilty, so they'll torture them for information. Or even when the suspect is guilty, they'll lie, because people who are tortured almost invariably will tell the torturer what they want to hear.

That's why it matters.

Winston Churchill: Would you go to bed with me for a million pounds?
Lady Astor: I suppose I would.
Winston Churchill: Would you go to bed with me for a hundred pounds?
Lady Astor: :eek: What sort of woman do you take me for?!
Winston Churchill: We have already determined what kind. Now we are arriving at the price.

That wasn't what I was getting at. I'm trying to say that it sounds like it's okay for the UN to inflict pain and suffering but not the US (or other countries). According to who? The UN?

The document does not say what the UN can do. It is essentially an agreement of nationstates. Those that sign the agreement, agree for example to that particular definition of torture, and they agree not to use torture, as it is defined in the agreement. If they act against the agreement, they are breaking a promise. And States prefer not to break such a promise. They argue instead that what they were doing was not in fact a violation of the promise.

Those States that have agreed to follow these rules are listed here (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm), some have made reservations, some have only signed the document but not accepted it at home, in their parliament or whatever.


The wording of such an agreement needs to be careful, because otherwise States will not play along. That is why "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" is not considered torture.

There is a more recent agreement (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat-one.htm), which says that those who sign it are supposed to allow inspections to places like Guantanamo. Those inspections are supposed to help prevent torture. There are much fewer States that have agreed to this one (link) (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9_b.htm). The United States of America has not.

No, there's no way to verify information gleaned from torture. Because if you can verify it then you didn't need to torture the guy.

No, there's no way to verify information gleaned from torture. Because if you can verify it then you didn't need to torture the guy.
This has no bearing on the impossible hypothetical scenario.

The hypothetical is entirely stupid; torture has been shown numerous times to be ineffective and unreliable.

The OP and all the right-wing nutjobs who pose said hypothetical are made of fail.

Bingo.

Hasn't this topic been done to death already?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544081

Not only has it been done to death, it's been won to death by the anti-side.

What context is this hypothetical invoked?

Sensible person: Torture should be illegal
Dumbass: No, it should be legal!!! Terrorists!
Sensible person: No, it's completely ineffective, and we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level.
Dumbass presents the hypothetical.


The entire purpose of this hypothetical is invariably to justify torture. If the example of the giant slugs was used as an argument to bomb mars, I'd say that it was stupid, too.

Exactly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Bad Corsairs! At least give a real treaty:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

This has no bearing on the impossible hypothetical scenario.

It has immense bearing. As the information from torture cannot be trusted, due to the fact that the victem will say whatever you want, the information must be verified.

So the scenario is a terrorist bomb which could kill millions of people, and this terrorist is linked with the bomb, to torture him would increase probability of getting right information to save many others.

However Torture is very extreme, information gained by using it could be false, as most people would blurt out anything just to make the pain stop. Also it is morally cruel to torture in itself to another person.
What if the bomb was stopped and you used torture on the terrorist and he escaped from prison, he would have good incentive to try killing many people again.

On the other side is the fact that yes torture is wrong but it's better to increase your chances of stopping that bomb to save millions for the sake of one terrorist, yes the information could be false but what if the terrorist had committed other crimes like Saddam Hussian and the terrorist had tortured many others shouldn't there be some punishment for the said terrorist?

Personally i find the very idea of torture repulsive and horrific, but then again there are many other people out there who don't know about the threat so wouldn't you make the choice to save them?
(personally what you could do is, to scare the terrorist into giving information, by fooling them into thinking you have someone they love and pretend to kill them while he/she watches, which although a horrific trickery, it could potentially save many peoples lives and no one is phsyically harmed).

This dilemma seems to put you into arguing either for act utilitarian principles of the "greatest good for the greatest number", or Kantian principles "if you make a law, you must will it to be carried out by all other autonomous agents, (put simply (but incorrectly) do unto others as they'd do unto you".

With the false killing or other trickery methods you can avoid this dilemma, but personally i think if i didn't have time to try elaborate deception then i'd have to torture him/her.

.............
It has immense bearing. As the information from torture cannot be trusted, due to the fact that the victem will say whatever you want, the information must be verified.

So the only fault with the hypothesis is that torture is not useful?

What if it was? Would it then be okay?

So the only fault with the hypothesis is that torture is not useful?

What if it was? Would it then be okay?

The assumption that it would be useful is at fault, making the question moot, and worse, boring.

The assumption that it would be useful is at fault, making the question moot, and worse, boring.

Question: If pigs could fly, would you worry that they would shit on your head?

Answer: No, because it is unrealistic and stupid to think that pigs could fly.

what if the person gets "turned on" by pain. The more pain you inflict on him/her, the friendlier (s)he becomes until the point where (s)he will tell you the truth.

Would it then be considered torture if the subject enjoys it? :p

what if the person gets "turned on" by pain. The more pain you inflict on him/her, the friendlier (s)he becomes until the point where (s)he will tell you the truth.

Would it then be considered torture if the subject enjoys it? :p

Is there any part of your soul depravity has not reached? lol.
Well i suppose it wouldn't count as torture but the person might need to go to get psychiatric treatment, and a large dose of reality with a hint of imagination and a glob of guilt, hell i could be the creator of human mind, hahahaha you're all doomed....DOOMED i tell's ya.....they tell me i'm mad..ha!...mad if only they knew that torture was fun........:headbang:....that's better now i'm a thinking fairy.
Sorry i went off a bit track there, i doubt the person even if they enjoyed torture would like to be humiliated by the interrogators.:eek:

Is there any part of your soul depravity has not reached? lol.
Well i suppose it wouldn't count as torture but the person might need to go to get psychiatric treatment, and a large dose of reality with a hint of imagination and a glob of guilt, hell i could be the creator of human mind, hahahaha you're all doomed....DOOMED i tell's ya.....they tell me i'm mad..ha!...mad if only they knew that torture was fun........:headbang:....that's better now i'm a thinking fairy.
Sorry i went off a bit track there, i doubt the person even if they enjoyed torture would like to be humiliated by the interrogators.:eek:

true, while this is also a far fetched Hypothetical, there might actually be one submissive who probably does enjoy the pain and humiliation...

can you imagine the torturer tho. :p

Torturer: Talk or you'll get waterboarded again.
Sub: oh, please, yes... more... more... thank you sir...
Torturer: ... I feel so... violated right now...

Am I the only one who doesn't believe in moral absolutes? I mean.. if you do, to me, that kind of misses the point of liberalism. It seems like a huge double standard, NSG is constantly attacking those who wish to see morality imposed on politics (abortion etc...), yet cry in horror as soon as the word torture is mentioned. I'm not saying for a second that abortion and torture are the same, yet they are both usually means to an end. Pro life is justified with flawed absolute assertions, similar to those against torture, where the assertion is "torture never works 100% of the time and will never work". They are even taking this assertion as far as using it against a hypothetical which has preemptively ruled out this alleged truth in the situation and they are insisting that this absolute rule must be obeyed even if it costs the lives of millions of people. Anyone else getting this same feeling?

Am I the only one who doesn't believe in moral absolutes?
Nope. However the majority of people here like to feel morally superior and will try to appear morally superior to everyone else not taking into account human reaction to high pressure situations.

What's with all the torture threads these days? I mean, how many threads do we need to have about how torture doesn't work?

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

In the military it is morally justifiable to sacrifice 10 to save 100, so why shouldn't extraordinary interrogation techniques be used in situations you are describing?

In the military it is morally justifiable to sacrifice 10 to save 100, so why shouldn't extraordinary interrogation techniques be used in situations you are describing?

Because torture is notoriously unreliable, remember?

Because torture is notoriously unreliable, remember?

I didn't say torture, I said "extrodinary interrogation techniques." Seems they worked on Shiek Kalid Mohammed and a few other folks vacationing in Gitmo. :rolleyes:

In the military it is morally justifiable to sacrifice 10 to save 100, so why shouldn't extraordinary interrogation techniques be used in situations you are describing?

I think they should be used, but I don't think it should be legal. That is the dilemma. Mine at least.

As for military morality, is there some kind of rulebook, or code, or law, that tells you the acceptable ratio between sacrificed and saved?

What's with all the torture threads these days? I mean, how many threads do we need to have about how torture doesn't work?
While people are being tortured, it should be discussed, IMO. And this thread is not about whether torture works.

Am I the only one who doesn't believe in moral absolutes? I mean.. if you do, to me, that kind of misses the point of liberalism. It seems like a huge double standard, NSG is constantly attacking those who wish to see morality imposed on politics (abortion etc...), yet cry in horror as soon as the word torture is mentioned. I'm not saying for a second that abortion and torture are the same, yet they are both usually means to an end. Pro life is justified with flawed absolute assertions, similar to those against torture, where the assertion is "torture never works 100% of the time and will never work". They are even taking this assertion as far as using it against a hypothetical which has preemptively ruled out this alleged truth in the situation and they are insisting that this absolute rule must be obeyed even if it costs the lives of millions of people. Anyone else getting this same feeling?

I should have asked how many millions of people should be sacrificed rather than torture someone, if it was a given that it would work. Maybe next time...

What's with all the torture threads these days? I mean, how many threads do we need to have about how torture doesn't work?

Perhaps they're trying to torture us into saying it does?

Of course we should use torture, even if, assuming for the sake of argument, it isn't effective (it is, of course, even though the libs don't admit this because it's not politically correct):

1. They're islamofascist terrorists. They deserve it!

2. People who say torture is wrong are heathens. The LORD uses punitive torture, only his torture is FOREVER. If you say that torture is wrong, you doubt the word of the LORD, and you are an infidel who will have a place in the LAKE OF FIRE for all eternity.

Of course we should use torture, even if, assuming for the sake of argument, it isn't effective (it is, of course, even though the libs don't admit this because it's not politically correct):

1. They're islamofascist terrorists. They deserve it!

2. People who say torture is wrong are heathens. The LORD uses punitive torture, only his torture is FOREVER. If you say that torture is wrong, you doubt the word of the LORD, and you are an infidel who will have a place in the LAKE OF FIRE for all eternity.
Do you think AMATEUR TROLLS deserve to be tortured?

Do you think AMATEUR TROLLS deserve to be tortured?

What's a troll? :confused:

Of course we should use torture, even if, assuming for the sake of argument, it isn't effective (it is, of course, even though the libs don't admit this because it's not politically correct):

1. They're islamofascist terrorists. They deserve it!

2. People who say torture is wrong are heathens. The LORD uses punitive torture, only his torture is FOREVER. If you say that torture is wrong, you doubt the word of the LORD, and you are an infidel who will have a place in the LAKE OF FIRE for all eternity.

I was thinking trolls were becoming extinct. I'm unpleasantly surprised.

I didn't say torture, I said "extrodinary interrogation techniques." Seems they worked on Shiek Kalid Mohammed and a few other folks vacationing in Gitmo. :rolleyes:

Oh? Well you go make another thread about "extrodinary interrogation techniques.", since this thread is about torture.

I didn't say torture, I said "extrodinary interrogation techniques." Seems they worked on Shiek Kalid Mohammed and a few other folks vacationing in Gitmo. :rolleyes:

So you would like to have been subjected to that when you were in the service, eh?

5 myths about torture and truth (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html)

And such examples could be multiplied. The Japanese fascists, no strangers to torture, said it best in their field manual, which was found in Burma during World War II: They described torture as the clumsiest possible method of gathering intelligence. Like most sensible torturers, they preferred to use torture for intimidation, not information.

In fact, the problem of torture does not stem from the prisoner who has information; it stems from the prisoner who doesn't. Such a person is also likely to lie, to say anything, often convincingly. The torture of the informed may generate no more lies than normal interrogation, but the torture of the ignorant and innocent overwhelms investigators with misleading information. In these cases, nothing is indeed preferable to anything. Anything needs to be verified, and the CIA's own 1963 interrogation manual explains that "a time-consuming delay results" -- hardly useful when every moment matters.

Intelligence gathering is especially vulnerable to this problem. When police officers torture, they know what the crime is, and all they want is the confession. When intelligence officers torture, they must gather information about what they don't know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) contended at the hearing that sometimes severe techniques need to be used in emergencies and against the nation's top enemies, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks' alleged architect, who was subjected to waterboarding in CIA custody. Franks said that Mohammed experienced just 90 seconds of waterboarding and gave up important information about al-Qaeda.

Nance disputed Franks's assessment, saying that Mohammed probably knew how to resist and gave up information that would appear to be a "gold mine" to his interrogators but instead was "trash" for him and al-Qaeda.

I don't like the "super-very-necessary" part.

Interpretations of that can mean loss of civil rights.

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2007/11/a_different_president_a_differ.html

Question: If pigs could fly, would you worry that they would shit on your head?

Answer: No, because it is unrealistic and stupid to think that pigs could fly.

And you answer your own OP in flaming colors.

And you answer your own OP in flaming colors.

Thank you. This is the answer of someone who is perspectively challenged. I thought you might like it.

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2007/11/a_different_president_a_differ.html
“How exciting! It’s just like an episode of 24!”

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument fails on innumerable levels, not least on its implausibility.

“How exciting! It’s just like an episode of 24!”

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument fails on innumerable levels, not least on its implausibility.

Which? Apart from implausibility and uselessness?

And you answer your own OP in flaming colors.

The best answer is a "wah wah I'm to cowardly to answer your hypothetical, so I'll just whine about its silliness" dodge?

Which? Apart from implausibility and uselessness?
Well, apart from being completely implausible and useless (which is a pretty big argument against the scenario), the torturing of the ‘Ticking Bomb’ terrorist is unlikely to yield any information pertaining to (a) location of the bomb (b) method of disarming the bomb (c) preventing the explosion in time, assumes the bomb can be disarmed at all, and grants no reliable information in the first place (tortured folk will fess up to anything, fictional or real).

Which is what’s to be expected of a stupid ‘thought experiment’.

it should be legal

might be a small chance of crime prevention
who's going to want to get tortured?

Well, apart from being completely implausible and useless (which is a pretty big argument against the scenario), the torturing of the ‘Ticking Bomb’ terrorist is unlikely to yield any information pertaining to (a) location of the bomb (b) method of disarming the bomb (c) preventing the explosion in time, assumes the bomb can be disarmed at all, and grants no reliable information in the first place (tortured folk will fess up to anything, fictional or real).

Which is what’s to be expected of a stupid ‘thought experiment’.

You are only saying that it is useless and impossible. Nothing else.

Why do you think thought experiments are stupid? Are you not very good at them?

Well, apart from being completely implausible and useless (which is a pretty big argument against the scenario), the torturing of the ‘Ticking Bomb’ terrorist is unlikely to yield any information pertaining to (a) location of the bomb (b) method of disarming the bomb (c) preventing the explosion in time, assumes the bomb can be disarmed at all, and grants no reliable information in the first place (tortured folk will fess up to anything, fictional or real).

Which is what’s to be expected of a stupid ‘thought experiment’.

Regardless of what you said, you are aware that in this hypothetical, the chances of torture working are a certainty right?

You are only saying that it is useless and impossible. Nothing else.
And? Need there be anything else?

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument is used by some to justify torture, et even in a hypothetical situation where the only way to garner the whereabouts, method of disarmament, etc., of the nuclear bomb was to torture Mr. Terrorist, it would be an unreliable method.

Which make those who advocate the use of torture in real life by using the ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument even more in the wrong.

Why do you think thought experiments are stupid? Are you not very good at them?
Pointless flamebait.

Bad form.


Regardless of what you said, you are aware that in this hypothetical, the chances of torture working are a certainty right?
Of course; if the hypothetical situation includes ‘torture always works’. Point is, most of those who push the ‘Ticking Bomb’ hypothetical situation will argue that parallels can be drawn in real life, including the ludicrous bit about torture producing reliable, timely information.

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?


If it's 100% certain that the guy knows where it is, and how to defuse it, and that the information can be guaranteed to be true. Then yes, I would begrudgingly say go ahead with it and get the information. But you can't guarantee any of those things, not even close to it.

To the question "Should torture should be legal if it is super-very-necessary?" I vote no, to the question "If we were to live in a fantasy land where torture was completely infallible and actually pleasures the unguilty, would you accept torture" I vote "Alright, if it's really that necessary".

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

At least in Italy, torture can sometimes be non-punishable (still it's a crime).
That is: while torture is illegal (falls under the crimes of "private violence", "assault", "injuries", "kidnapping", "menaces", "abuse of power", "coercition"), a crime isn't a crime if it's committed in state of necessity (like, if you kill a man to prevent him from killing someone else, or if you break and enter a home to shelter yourself from a blizzard, or steal food if you're starving to death). Anyway, torture should ALWAYS stay a major crime (a felony, I think) so the court will hold a trial and judge whether torture has been used because of necessity, and not wantonly.

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

If it has been ascertained, so far, without the use of torture that: A) It is this person that knows where the nuclear weapon is, B) that he knows when it will go off (and that it is indeed very soon), and C) he also knows how to defuse it.. why wouldn't they be able to find the nuke as well?

The problem with this hypothetical situation, and others like it designed around tricky moral dilemmas, is that it completely ignores the context and complexity of the moral issue itself. We can *never* know exactly when to use torture.. and if we begin to use it on enemies, what moral grounds do we have to say that they should not be using it on us?

So, I posit a slightly different scenario: Your government has captured a foreign civilian that, while not in league with terrorists, had connections to a shipping company that was used to smuggle an explosive device (possibly of radiological, if not nuclear, in nature) into your country.

The exact power and intended target of the device is not known, nor is it known for certain how much information this man has. He has remained completely tight-lipped on the issue, fearing that speaking of it will bring violent retaliation upon his family from extremists. The government has ruled out intervening to protect his family because, in the event that the device is already in place, they don't want to tip their hand early and risk a detonation without demands.

Unfortunately, their capture of this man is well publicized. The foreign country's government has managed to capture an officer involved in his capture, but as per their orders the officer is not releasing any information on the issue. The foreign country is considering using torture to extract information about the man's capture.

A tense effort is made to contact the foreign nation, and they have responded that the officer will be returned unharmed.. provided their citizen is as well, in a timely manner. If this does not occur, the foreign nation will be forced to take all routes necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens, and will stop at no lengths to extract the relevant information from the soldier.

So, this situation laid out.. would you allow them to torture the foreign citizen if it meant that a soldier of your own nationality was tortured as well? What if the decision came down to you because that soldier was your husband, wife, or mother or father? What if the situation was reversed? Would you follow international law and refrain from torturing the enemy soldier if their government was torturing one of your citizens?

If it has been ascertained, so far, without the use of torture that: A) It is this person that knows where the nuclear weapon is, B) that he knows when it will go off (and that it is indeed very soon), and C) he also knows how to defuse it.. why wouldn't they be able to find the nuke as well?

The problem with this hypothetical situation, and others like it designed around tricky moral dilemmas, is that it completely ignores the context and complexity of the moral issue itself. We can *never* know exactly when to use torture.. and if we begin to use it on enemies, what moral grounds do we have to say that they should not be using it on us?

So, I posit a slightly different scenario: Your government has captured a foreign civilian that, while not in league with terrorists, had connections to a shipping company that was used to smuggle an explosive device (possibly of radiological, if not nuclear, in nature) into your country.

The exact power and intended target of the device is not known, nor is it known for certain how much information this man has. He has remained completely tight-lipped on the issue, fearing that speaking of it will bring violent retaliation upon his family from extremists. The government has ruled out intervening to protect his family because, in the event that the device is already in place, they don't want to tip their hand early and risk a detonation without demands.

Unfortunately, their capture of this man is well publicized. The foreign country's government has managed to capture an officer involved in his capture, but as per their orders the officer is not releasing any information on the issue. The foreign country is considering using torture to extract information about the man's capture.

A tense effort is made to contact the foreign nation, and they have responded that the officer will be returned unharmed.. provided their citizen is as well, in a timely manner. If this does not occur, the foreign nation will be forced to take all routes necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens, and will stop at no lengths to extract the relevant information from the soldier.

So, this situation laid out.. would you allow them to torture the foreign citizen if it meant that a soldier of your own nationality was tortured as well? What if the decision came down to you because that soldier was your husband, wife, or mother or father? What if the situation was reversed? Would you follow international law and refrain from torturing the enemy soldier if their government was torturing one of your citizens?

This dilemma is a bit harder than the other one,
so to simplify it either risk open war with another dodgy nation, or risk many people's lives being taken.

It would depend on the relations with the country, if it was say US and UK then i think torture wouldn't be justified as many good relations would be soured many economic and political deals would be wiped.
But if it was with say UK and IRAQ although torture wouldn't be justified here, you can't guarantee they would follow suit.
I'd imagine the safest route would be don't torture person, then go on a mad chase to find the weapon with the information from your officer.
What you would really need is proper information on if there really is a nuclear weapon, what type and if it's worth a national incident.

I suppose this question is similar to what is worse, death, or the fear of death.
I think it would be better not to torture the person if they were from another country, but if the other country already said they consider using torture you could equally threaten to invade their country if they attempt to do so, and demand that both prisoners are on a constant video feed.

Also another reason to avoid torture is that the people who are smuggling the weapon might not have the same nationalities of the person you've captured, which would mean torturing a useless man and pissing off another country, for no good reason.

However the argument to torture could follow you put a fake person in place of him, and torture him while publicly saying you're not, any information gained use to track down the weapon then send a secret mission to rescue your police officer, as long as the public wouldn't find out about it you might just avoid the risk of war.
Generally it's best to avoid torture unless you're certain that the person has the information that can bring it down, also the person involved should know the risk of potentially killing millions and shouldn't have done his actions.

Either way sounds messy, personally i'd avoid torture, then even if the weapon does detonate you have a valid and moral reason to go to war, and most of the rest of the world would be with you.
So you could argue that the US/UK war against IRAQ had moral reasons, but not the right sort of information, yes they removed a horrific regime and helped to rebuild, and avoided potential casualties. But politically it was disastrous, increasing the divide between East and West.
I'm glad i don't have to make decisions like that, and i hope i never have to.

Yes for torture as a form of recreation, but nothing else methinks.

I can be very effective as a type of 'ice-breaker' activity.

Yes for torture as a form of recreation, but nothing else methinks.

I can be very effective as a type of 'ice-breaker' activity.

Heh. Ice breaker.

"Hi there, I'm Mike. I thought we might get to know eachother with a bit of light whipping..."

:D

Heh. Ice breaker.

"Hi there, I'm Mike. I thought we might get to know eachother with a bit of light whipping..."

:D

wouldn't it be more like...

"Hi there, I'm Mike. Before we get started, I just wanna make sure you're comfortable... the cuffs arn't too tight are they? good. what about the leather straps... ok, I'll adjust this one... better? good. Now we'll begin with the Cat-o-nine tails and work our way up to the heated prod. now, let me put this ball gag in... a little wider please... ok, now remember, the safe word is 'Banana'..."

At least in Italy, torture can sometimes be non-punishable (still it's a crime).

Than Italy would violate the European Convention on Human Rights, article 3:
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

And according to article 15, article 3 is an non-derogatory article, so if torture is non-punishable Italy is in breach. (Possibly of article 13 too.)

wouldn't it be more like...

"Hi there, I'm Mike. Before we get started, I just wanna make sure you're comfortable... the cuffs arn't too tight are they? good. what about the leather straps... ok, I'll adjust this one... better? good. Now we'll begin with the Cat-o-nine tails and work our way up to the heated prod. now, let me put this ball gag in... a little wider please... ok, now remember, the safe word is 'Banana'..."

You seem... awfully knowledgeable on this. :eek:

You seem... awfully knowledgeable on this. :eek:

This reminds me of resevoir dogs with the song "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here i am stuck here in the middle with you".

You seem... awfully knowledgeable on this. :eek:

... err... research... yeah, research for my... er... book... yeah, research for my book. :p

Should the law allow torture if it is WITHOUT DOUBT the ONLY WAY to get VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION on a VERY IMPORTANT matter?

Like, when it is certain that the guy knows where in the city the nuke is, and it will go off very soon, and he knows how to defuse it?

Let me ask you this, if the person knows a nuclear bomb is about to go off in the city and he knows how to defuse it, do you think torture would change his mind? Or will it strengthen his/her cause? Think about that for a moment. Also, what about if the suspect doesn't really know what's going on and because of torture, he/she will say anything for the pain to go away (and you just wasted a crucial time on finding out where that ticking bomb is). It's better to befriend your enemies, get them to open up in a manner of "false" friendship rather than through excruciating pain. Try to understand the dividing cultures or religions, try making them understand that we also are caring humans, that we're not that different at all. Speak to them in their language if they cannot speak English. Show them pictures of children, innocent people that might become victims of this impending threat.

... err... research... yeah, research for my... er... book... yeah, research for my book. :p

I'm sure it will be a bestseller. :)

Aren't truth serums, interrogative techniques and mind games like what they did with Abu Zubayda* better?

If there is a nuke timer, a jihadi is not going to give you reliable info with primitive techniques like torture. He has crossed that line long back.

*- yes he was tortured too...but the part where he was led to believe he was freed and with friends is what I am referring to.

Of course; if the hypothetical situation includes ‘torture always works’. Point is, most of those who push the ‘Ticking Bomb’ hypothetical situation will argue that parallels can be drawn in real life, including the ludicrous bit about torture producing reliable, timely information.

See Israel for how that works out in Real Life... The Supreme Court have opened for "physical pressure" in ticking bomb scenarios... The condition seems to be abused by the Israelis quite a lot.

No, there's no way to verify information gleaned from torture. Because if you can verify it then you didn't need to torture the guy.

S'posing it matches precisely what the OTHER guy you tortured said? And matched a few pieces of evidence they didn't know you had?

When you say "no way" you set yourself up to be outfoxed by people willing to think of a way. Self imposed limits only limit yourself.

And while we're on the subject, we keep hearing how torture has been "proven" ineffective, only thing is...

we never hear the proof.

Must be like a religious thing, I guess. If you question the priests, it's because you're evil... and you still don't get your questions answered.

So now I'm really curious. How many historical events do we have in which we can show with any degree of certainty that a failure was caused by torture producing erroneous information? One of the problems with saying "no way" or "never" is that a single successful counter-example proves you wrong. In the case of "torture is never effective", we have the fact that torture revealed the "Babington Plot", a conspiracy to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century.

So, if things like that are to be countered, we need specifics, not platitudes and unproven generalisms. Forget what the priests tell us, if torture is not effective, then how do we KNOW this? For starters, we know that various non-democratic forces in the world use torture routinely, and they are PROUD of it. If it is so ineffective, why do all these people support it so much?

This is an entirely different question from "is Torture ethical?" or "what is torture?" Depending on your philosophical point of view, effectiveness either does not matter at all, or is a key issue.

S'posing it matches precisely what the OTHER guy you tortured said? And matched a few pieces of evidence they didn't know you had? How many people do you have to torture to add up to the data you can get from a few bribes and good old fashioned intelligence gathering? You still have to verify it that way anyway.

When you say "no way" you set yourself up to be outfoxed by people willing to think of a way. Self imposed limits only limit yourself.

And while we're on the subject, we keep hearing how torture has been "proven" ineffective, only thing is...

we never hear the proof. It's simple logic, if someone is torturing you then you'll say anything they want to hear to get them to stop. The problem you run into is that if the person you're torturing really doesn't know then you're fucking them over for no reason. Since terrorists work in cells and not some unified collective odds are the guy you're sticking pins in doesn't know anyway.

Must be like a religious thing, I guess. If you question the priests, it's because you're evil... and you still don't get your questions answered.

So now I'm really curious. How many historical events do we have in which we can show with any degree of certainty that a failure was caused by torture producing erroneous information? One of the problems with saying "no way" or "never" is that a single successful counter-example proves you wrong. In the case of "torture is never effective", we have the fact that torture revealed the "Babington Plot", a conspiracy to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century. Who said it's never effective? You get tons of data, but you have to do the legwork to find out what's true and what ain't anyway.

So, if things like that are to be countered, we need specifics, not platitudes and unproven generalisms. Forget what the priests tell us, if torture is not effective, then how do we KNOW this? For starters, we know that various non-democratic forces in the world use torture routinely, and they are PROUD of it. If it is so ineffective, why do all these people support it so much? Because it's a vindictive form of punishment as well as a questionably effective method to gain new information. People are huge on vindictive, see the death penalty for further information on that one.

S'posing it matches precisely what the OTHER guy you tortured said? And matched a few pieces of evidence they didn't know you had?

When you say "no way" you set yourself up to be outfoxed by people willing to think of a way. Self imposed limits only limit yourself.

And while we're on the subject, we keep hearing how torture has been "proven" ineffective, only thing is...

we never hear the proof.

Must be like a religious thing, I guess. If you question the priests, it's because you're evil... and you still don't get your questions answered.

So now I'm really curious. How many historical events do we have in which we can show with any degree of certainty that a failure was caused by torture producing erroneous information? One of the problems with saying "no way" or "never" is that a single successful counter-example proves you wrong. In the case of "torture is never effective", we have the fact that torture revealed the "Babington Plot", a conspiracy to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century.

So, if things like that are to be countered, we need specifics, not platitudes and unproven generalisms. Forget what the priests tell us, if torture is not effective, then how do we KNOW this? For starters, we know that various non-democratic forces in the world use torture routinely, and they are PROUD of it. If it is so ineffective, why do all these people support it so much?

This is an entirely different question from "is Torture ethical?" or "what is torture?" Depending on your philosophical point of view, effectiveness either does not matter at all, or is a key issue.

I see what you're saying but the last part of your argument doesn't hold water.
just because various other nations use the torture doesn't justify it morally for example in Nazi Germany it was accepted by the SS to carry out the "final solution", which resulted in millions of Jews, homosexuals, socialists being executed, but that doesn't mean that because more of them thought it was the right thing to do it should be.
Also one reason they are considered non-democratic is because they use torture, why democratic nations don't legalise it.

One reason why torture doesn't work is because of "interrogator bias", the interogator will twist the questions given to give a limited response effectively giving the person a "false dilemma", either or no middle ground.

Also the torture would have undesirable affects on the torturer, "constant exposure to danger will breed contempt for it", they would eventually become desensatised by continual torture.

It's in human nature not to harm others (generally speaking, or part of your intuition, like eating and sleeping), if you do harm others you usually feel bad, torture would make alot of people feel worse and if no results are gained then the process was meaningless.

The end doesn't Justify the means, even if information is recieved the way it was gained is morally wrong (from an objective point of view).
In retrospect that doesn't take away the fact that you were potentially trying to save many more lives.
But you're right we never really hear of proof that torture is ineffective, but how could you get the proof? again ethical issues arise from recieving the data.