NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, having just finished the season of 24 Season 7, I can say that was an intense ride. Awesome season, awesome finish.

But I didn't come here to start a circle jerk around Jack Bauer. I came here to discuss the Jack Bauer effect he has on the issue of the torture debate in the United States. While some may find this funny, 24's character Jack Bauer has brought the torture issue much closer to home than ever before to many, many Americans.

24 has been complained about because it, in showing situations where Jack (and others) use torture in order to save lives, is said to legitimize torture in extreme circumstances. Kiefer Sutherland (actor who plays Jack Bauer) has actually publicly spoken out against the use of torture.

Whether or not this 24's viewpoint on torture, just part of the show, or a mix of both, this last episode touched on the issue like nothing I've ever seen has. I'll try to explain as best as possible.

(To the Spoiler Alert and Torture Issue)


Jack Bauer
http://www.tvornottv.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/jack-bauer.jpg

Agent Renee Walker
http://24.neoseeker.com/w/i/24/thumb/7/72/Renee-walker.jpg/300px-Renee-walker.jpg

Jack is laying, seemingly dying, after the day has been saved, for the time being. Agent Walker comes up to Jack and informs him that they have in custody the man behind everything and could use him to uncover who else participated in the conspiracy. The problem is, while Agent Walker explains they are certain he is guilty, they have little to no evidence that could hold up in court against this man, due to the precautions he has taken to protect himself and his terrorist organization. Agent Walker then tells Jack that the man is denying everything, and that she doesn't know what to do. She says she cannot live with the fact that without following up on the conspiracy, she is allowing those the man works with to remain at large, free to create another terrorist attack. She comes to Jack for advice.

Jack is obviously troubled by the issue, telling her he has been dealing with this problem his whole life. He states, if he sees 15 innocent lives held hostage on a bus, he will stop at nothing to save those lives. He feels it is what he should do, it is what he must do. His job, his responsibility. He regrets nothing of what he did, the difficult decisions he made in order to save those around him.

Then he looks at Agent Walker and tells her, "but then again, I'm not a member of the FBI."

He continues, "You took an oath, you made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line it always starts out with a small step. Before you know it you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction, just to justify what you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on that bus - I know that's right, in my mind - I know that's right. I just don't think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice that I can give you is, try to make choices you can live with.

Later, back at FBI, while Agent Walker is watching upon the man in a holding cell, visually troubled by the fact that he is going to get away with what he is done, and by the fact that she will have had the power to stop any future hypothetical attacks from his shadow organization, Agent Walker, at gunpoint, commands the other FBI Agent to leave the room. Then, after locking herself inside, Agent Walker walks over to the man, with the intention to use any and all means necessary to prevent him and his organization from getting away. You can see the striking transformation that comes over her, as she strides towards the suspect, laying her badge behind on the table in what appears to be her resignation. When introduced into the season, she had been appalled at Jack Bauer's handling of suspects and criminals. Now, the season seems to paint, she has become just like Jack.

From 1:05:10 on : http://www.fancast.com/tv/24/5308/1127811744/6:00-AM---7:00-AM--7:00-AM---8:00-AM/videos



I know that people everywhere have their own knee-jerk reactions to the issue, but is it possbile that it's not black or white? That torture is bad and should be illegal, but there are times when we must negotiate with our own values in order to save those around us? Is it possible that we can find ourselves logically taking one side and emotionally taking another?

The key difference being, that unlike episodes of 24, information extracted from harsh interrogation or outright torture in real life tends to be rather unreliable.

The key difference being, that unlike episodes of 24, information extracted from harsh interrogation or outright torture in real life tends to be rather unreliable.
A key point in the debate. That's a risk you run. However, would taking that 50/50 chance of extracting true information from false information be morally better than doing nothing and allowing innocents to suffer from it?

Like the old saying goes. There are two kinds of evil-doers. Those who do evil, and those who see evil being done and do nothing.

Also, a point in the show is that they have witnessed this guy being a baddy, so there is zero doubt. Agent Walker claims they can get him to talk, and assumingly, if he provides false information, they can test it while still holding him to see if it was false. . . .

What do you do?

The key difference being, that unlike episodes of 24, information extracted from harsh interrogation or outright torture in real life tends to be rather unreliable.
and judging from the title, it works within 24 hours (i have never watched the show) whereas in real life even false info takes weeks to get.

and judging from the title, it works within 24 hours (i have never watched the show) whereas in real life even false info takes weeks to get.

A key point in the debate. That's a risk you run. However, would taking that 50/50 chance of extracting true information from false information be morally better than doing nothing and allowing innocents to suffer from it?

Like the old saying goes. There are two kinds of evil-doers. Those who do evil, and those who see evil being done and do nothing.

Also, a point in the show is that they have witnessed this guy being a baddy, so there is zero doubt. Agent Walker claims they can get him to talk, and assumingly, if he provides false information, they can test it while still holding him to see if it was false. . . .

What do you do?

A key point in the debate. That's a risk you run. However, would taking that 50/50 chance of extracting true information from false information be morally better than doing nothing and allowing innocents to suffer from it?

Like the old saying goes. There are two kinds of evil-doers. Those who do evil, and those who see evil being done and do nothing.

Also, a point in the show is that they have witnessed this guy being a baddy, so there is zero doubt. Agent Walker claims they can get him to talk, and assumingly, if he provides false information, they can test it while still holding him to see if it was false. . . .

What do you do?
the problem is that for the 24 scenario to be brought to the real world you have to suppose that it works, that it wont cause you to waste time figuring out that the guy has lied to you, that you can tell when to STOP because you have been told the truth....

if that could be done then in an extreme emergency it would be OK to cause extreme pain and suffering in order to get the info--even if its illegal and even if the information wont be allowed into court later when the guy is prosecuted.

that doesnt happen in the real world.

However, would taking that 50/50 chance of extracting true information from false information...
Is this chance a hypothetical figure?

Is this chance a hypothetical figure?

Well, in the case proposed by the series, the man is in custody, so his information can be testied and verified. If his information were found to be false, he is still in custody and they are then back to square 1. . .

Does nobody have the Sack O' Balls to answer the poll?

Does nobody have the Sack O' Balls to answer the poll?
As the poll manages to simultaneously to be a False Dilemma, a stab in the wrong direction and be based on a ridiculous TV show with a highly unrealistic view of reality, little wonder people are answering.

You're question, and the thread in general, would be much improved by either sticking with reality or plumping for the masochistic wankfest that is 24.

Well, in the case proposed by the series, the man is in custody, so his information can be testied and verified. If his information were found to be false, he is still in custody and they are then back to square 1.
If there is time to test and verify information, then there is no need to torture.

EDIT: Grief, I've just re-read your description of the 24 ep.

Are you contending that torturing an individual and thus securing their conviction, in order to prevent a hypothetical, as-yet unplanned atrocity, might be legitimate?

How come Jack Bauer never tortures someone that turns out to be innocent?

How come Jack Bauer never tortures someone that turns out to be innocent?

The magic of scriptwriting.

How come Jack Bauer never tortures someone that turns out to be innocent?

It's the same reason why in the 24 hours, you never see anyone going to the restroom or grabbing a bite to eat.

Rather than one of my characteristic inflammatory opinions, I offer the following measured response.

If I were in Jack Bauer's, or Renee Walker's, position, I would:
a) do what needed to be done to save innocent American lives;
b) upon completion of the task at hand, submit to the legal process;
c) explain and defend my actions; and
d) hope for a jury that cares more about saving the lives of Americans than the "rights" of terrorists and traitors.

If the jury were to reach the wrong verdict anyway, I would accept the decision, serve my time, sleep well knowing that I had saved American lives, and hope for vindication by historians of a more enlightened era. In such an outcome, the words of Frodo Baggins are appropriate: "It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."

How come Jack Bauer never tortures someone that turns out to be innocent?

This season he did rough up the imam, who turned out to be correct about the fellow framed for the final terrorist attack in the subway. He apologized for that incident and later befriended the imam.

It's the same reason why in the 24 hours, you never see anyone going to the restroom or grabbing a bite to eat.

Yeah, but if the writers so sincerely want to stick thier oar into the whole torture debate, couldn't they have the balls to have torture someone who had no information or was innocent? And really really lay into them, and then, as the bloody beaten two-year old baby Bauer is torturing to find out where Bin Laden is breathes it's last agonizing breath, they could have Bauer look in to camera and say "Well, sorry it turns out that little Julia actually knew nothing about Bin Ladens location, but it's important that we torture everybody who might possibly know about Bin Laden location so as to prevent an even greater disaster, and since nobody is perfect, this was bound to happen eventually. Anybody for lunch?"

I think that would provide an interesting little scene to frame a debate around, much more so than the OP's example.

This season he did rough up the imam, who turned out to be correct about the fellow framed for the final terrorist attack in the subway. He apologized for that incident and later befriended the imam.

And I bet you were disappointed.

This season he did rough up the imam, who turned out to be correct about the fellow framed for the final terrorist attack in the subway. He apologized for that incident and later befriended the imam.

Aww, that's nice. Lucky the Iman was so understanding, huh?

Honestly, I think I found 24 to be more evenhanded than usual. I mean, it does labor under the mistaken impression that torture is reliable, but Jack doesn't try and justify himself. Not really anyway. He admits that what he's doing is wrong and against the law. He admits that the law was written by people who were smarter than him and that he knows deep down that those ideals have to be protected. It's not perfect, no. But it's a sincere attempt and I appreciate it.

Also, confession with an imam? Considering this is FOX... I mean, damn. Course they did bring us the first black president. Who was also a democrat. And a badass.

Y'know I don't think 24 is quite as much of a conservative handjob as people make it out to be sometimes.

Aww, that's nice. Lucky the Iman was so understanding, huh?

Actually, the imam was given the moral high ground on that one. Once he realizes that Jack really was wrong and that Jack is dying, instead of reveling in the "I told you so" moment, he offers him redemption from God, which Jack later takes him up on--in part, at least.

A key point in the debate. That's a risk you run. However, would taking that 50/50 chance of extracting true information from false information be morally better than doing nothing and allowing innocents to suffer from it?

Slippery slope. When the ends justify the means, eventually, you get to the point where the means are the ends. You tell yourself it's fine in this dire situation, make that justification. Then you tell yourself it's fine in a not too dire situation. Sooner or later, it becomes fine anytime.

Compromising principles is like compromising on a diet. Maybe you won't lose it all the way, but don't bet on it.

Y'know I don't think 24 is quite as much of a conservative handjob as people make it out to be sometimes.

You're quite correct. I watched until season four and vividly remember one scene where Bauer is helped fight off some faceless PMC baddies by two arabic gunshop owners. The writers even made them say "We'll help you fight. This is our country too!". I threw up in mouth a little.

How come Jack Bauer never tortures someone that turns out to be innocent?
He illegaly detained and rough-handled an Imam that turned out to be innocent in pursuit of a 'terrorist' who turned out to be an innocent being used by members of the conspiracy.

As the poll manages to simultaneously to be a False Dilemma, a stab in the wrong direction and be based on a ridiculous TV show with a highly unrealistic view of reality, little wonder people are answering.The poll asks pushes foward a difficult hypothetical that makes us question our emotion and reason, and begs your answer to it. It's not an easy answer to make, but it would be nice if you would make it.


If there is time to test and verify information, then there is no need to torture.
If the authorities are at a dead end, with no further leads, but know the suspect has further information, all the time in the world to test and verify information they don't yet have is not going to produce results. Enhanced interrogation, torture, - whatever - may.
EDIT: Grief, I've just re-read your description of the 24 ep.

Are you contending that torturing an individual and thus securing their conviction, in order to prevent a hypothetical, as-yet unplanned atrocity, might be legitimate?
The individual was directly responsible for terrorist attacks that had killed hundreds throughout the day, and would have killed far more had the attacks not been halted. But his organization, the members with whom he was attacking, remained at large and capable of continuing further attacks to reach their goal.

Slippery slope. When the ends justify the means, eventually, you get to the point where the means are the ends. You tell yourself it's fine in this dire situation, make that justification. Then you tell yourself it's fine in a not too dire situation. Sooner or later, it becomes fine anytime.

Compromising principles is like compromising on a diet. Maybe you won't lose it all the way, but don't bet on it.

Correct, it is a slippery slope. And 24, through Jack Bauer, presents that: "You took an oath, you made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line it always starts out with a small step. Before you know it you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction, just to justify what you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on that bus - I know that's right, in my mind - I know that's right. I just don't think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice that I can give you is, try to make choices you can live with."

The question is, when should one, if ever, take the chance of that risk in order to save innocents?

You're quite correct. I watched until season four and vividly remember one scene where Bauer is helped fight off some faceless PMC baddies by two arabic gunshop owners. The writers even made them say "We'll help you fight. This is our country too!". I threw up in mouth a little.
That scene was epic, you commie.

That scene was epic, you commie.

Eh, the wording though... It was just so... So... *Follows DD's example*

The poll asks pushes foward a difficult hypothetical that makes us question our emotion and reason

No, it doesn't. I know you might like to think it does, but it doesn't. Nothing about this poll is as new or clever or challenging or all that "difficult" as you seem to think it is. I know you're probably very proud to think of it, but this hypothetical doesn't cause us to "question" anything because, like reasonably intelligent people who have been surrounded by the question for years, we already know how we'd like to answer it.

The problem is though, it's fairly clear that despite your posing as the unbiased moderator, you already have your own view in mind. Rather than simply exploring the topic, seem bent on taking everyone who disagrees with your stance and tries to force your justification for your own beliefs with unrealistic scenarios, fear mongering, and a clear, possibly willful, ignorance of the actual reality. It's the same bullshit "ticking clock" argument that has been, and will continue to be refuted.

If you actually wanted to REALLY debate it, instead of trying to browbeat us into "OK, the bomb is going to go off in 30 seconds and kill 50 billion people, and the only guy who knows where it is isn't talking, WHAT DO YOU DO?" nonsense you'd be more responsive to the actual issues with torture that get raised, instead of repeating the same tired responses like a broken neo-con record.

So I fear that as much as you might be proud of your little "poll" here, it's not difficult, it's not challenging, and it makes me question nothing. I've already considered these questions. I've already come up with my answers, a fictional TV show not withstanding. If you actually wanted to be in a position to challenge my beliefs, you're about 10 years too late to the party.

Does nobody have the Sack O' Balls to answer the poll?

My ball sack is huge! I answered before reading the posts.

Correct, it is a slippery slope. And 24, through Jack Bauer, presents that: *snip*

The question is, when should one, if ever, take the chance of that risk in order to save innocents?

The answer is no. Even if you do save innocents this time, you'll still fall down that slippery slope and even if you miraculously avoided torturing innocents the first time, along with the completely unrealistic idea of being able to gain actionable information in a short time frame with torture, you'll end up harming more innocents out of hand as a matter of policy than any you could have saved.

And how would you ever stem abuse if abuse is a matter of course? No, you take up a tyrant's tools to do good and you will become the tyrant, no two ways about it.

Take New Mitanni for example. He's a prime example of why it'd be a bad idea to ever let the likes of him use those tools. He says that he'll do it to save innocents, but you know he'll turn them against anyone who doesn't march lockstep with him.

No, it doesn't. *SNIP*
I honestly didn't even finish reading that. Thank you for not contributing. :)

Random personal attacks? Explaining why the question was flawed? Hardly. If you want to talk about personal attacks, perhaps you should examine NA first.

He's basically ignoring any response that isn't tantamount to "Yes, it's okay to torture people in some instances." With 'some' being used in the same tone as "Some are More Equal than others".

My ball sack is huge! I answered before reading the posts.
Good for you, I suppose. :p
The answer is no. Even if you do save innocents this time, you'll still fall down that slippery slope and even if you miraculously avoided torturing innocents the first time, along with the completely unrealistic idea of being able to gain actionable information in a short time frame with torture, you'll end up harming more innocents out of hand as a matter of policy than any you could have saved.

And how would you ever stem abuse if abuse is a matter of course? No, you take up a tyrant's tools to do good and you will become the tyrant, no two ways about it.
I really do understand your position. It is thought out, well reasoned and correct. The problem is I also see the draw of the other side of the argument, when made rationaly. I think there will be, and should be, people on both sides keeping everything in balance. On the one hand, it is comforting to know that there are those who would do whatever it takes to ensure our saftey. Even if it means risking their careers or worse. On the other hand, it is comforting knowing that there are those who would keep the former in check, to punish any wrongdoings, even if the wrongdoings were performed with good intention, in order to keep our system in order. They must, as it is, moniter the moniters . . .

That's my position on it, really.

Take New Mitanni for example. He's a prime example of why it'd be a bad idea to ever let the likes of him use those tools. He says that he'll do it to save innocents, but you know he'll turn them against anyone who doesn't march lockstep with him.
I don't feel confident in saying that New Mitanni would torture those who disagree with him.

I really do understand your position. It is thought out, well reasoned and correct. The problem is I also see the draw of the other side of the argument, when made rationaly. I think there will be, and should be, people on both sides keeping everything in balance. On the one hand, it is comforting to know that there are those who would do whatever it takes to ensure our saftey. Even if it means risking their careers or worse. On the other hand, it is comforting knowing that there are those who would keep the former in check, to punish any wrongdoings, even if the wrongdoings were performed with good intention, in order to keep our system in order. They must, as it is, moniter the moniters . . .

That's my position on it, really.

I find your position terrifying, myself. We don't need anyone who goes around torturing people he "thinks" might have the information he needs. We don't need a man who routinely breaks the laws, rules, and procedures that we have so carefully crafted.

Why?

Because if we defy the rules, we are criminals ourselves. If we torture people, we become just like the people we're supposed to be defending against. That's why I find your position terrifying - it will make us what we are trying to prevent.

I find your position terrifying, myself. We don't need anyone who goes around torturing people he "thinks" might have the information he needs. We don't need a man who routinely breaks the laws, rules, and procedures that we have so carefully crafted.

Why?

Because if we defy the rules, we are criminals ourselves. If we torture people, we become just like the people we're supposed to be defending against. That's why I find your position terrifying - it will make us what we are trying to prevent.

While I understand your position, I don't agree that a hypothetical someone like that would be the same as the people he is defending against. For example, true, he may be using illegal means to defend, but his primary purpose is to defend and or repel an attack, not to inflict harm/death on civilians in order to achieve a political goal.

Anyway, to try to move past [MODEDIT: the OT squabble./MODEDIT], I'm going to have to agree with [MODEDIT: Neo Art] that the question just doesn't work. Real life doesn't feature Bad Guys whom we are 100% certain have accurate information and will reveal it if we torture them. If we lived in a TV show, torture might be an acceptable solution - but we don't, and it's really as simple as that.

Rather than one of my characteristic inflammatory opinions, I offer the following measured response.

If I were in Jack Bauer's, or Renee Walker's, position, I would:
a) do what needed to be done to save innocent American lives;
b) upon completion of the task at hand, submit to the legal process;
I would do the same, except instead of the bolded part, dispose of the body in a way that destroys the traces of torture and looks as legit or makes a safe MIA.

There are more innocent lives that will depend on me in the future, can't risk being unable to save them due to being in prison.

Real life doesn't feature Bad Guys whom we are 100% certain have accurate information and will reveal it if we torture them.
What if we capture Osama Lan Biden?

100% isn't necessary, 50% is good enough.

While I understand your position, I don't agree that a hypothetical someone like that would be the same as the people he is defending against. For example, true, he may be using illegal means to defend, but his primary purpose is to defend and or repel an attack, not to inflict harm/death on civilians in order to achieve a political goal.

I understand that you have this 100% perfect hypothetical world in mind where you know the person has the knowledge you need, and will give it up under torture.

Real life doesn't work like that. Even if the person has the knowledge you need the first time to keep them from leveling D.C., there's a slippery slope argument to be made that's perfectly valid.

Can we then torture to defend a skyscraper?

What about an apartment building?

A private residence?

Keep someone from spray painting a public building?


See, it will, inevitably, be used over and over again if we let people get away with it. It's romantic, sure, torturing the bad guy against your principles to save the world (tm), and after he's done, the TV show ends. That's not where it ends in the real world. It keeps going and going, perpetuating itself if not culled.

Because if we defy the rules, we are criminals ourselves.
If we torture people, we become just like the people we're supposed to be defending against.
But we already ARE.

We're all equal human beings, each of whom has very compelling reasons to do what they do. People don't become terrorists just because it looks like fun.

Every government is eager to perform crimes, when they suit its needs. We murder people in revenge for going against us. We enslave them in prisons. We break into homes, hold people captive. Is torture worse than murder and slavery? If so, not by much.

It's simply that some of us are on one side and some on the other.

Can we then torture to defend a skyscraper?
[...]
Keep someone from spray painting a public building?
[...]
It keeps going and going, perpetuating itself if not culled.
Well, let me ask you a question. So, you consider torture to be off limits, while current techniques - detention and breaking&entering - OK.

Is torture worse than detention? Sure it is.
Is torturing one worse than detaining 100? Perhaps.

But is detaining 100,000 people better than torturing one? Detaining 1,000,000? 6,000,000?

Every police actions against a suspect is a breach of human rights. A smaller breach or a larger one. It's always about doing a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Or, more commonly, doing a greater evil to revenge a lesser one.

Is torture worse than detention? Sure it is.
Is torturing one worse than detaining 100? Perhaps.

Yes.

But is detaining 100,000 people better than torturing one? Detaining 1,000,000? 6,000,000?

False dilemma. We can only hold people for a limited time period (depending on jurisdiction 24-48 hours). Also, I don't think we've ever detained a million people ever. We simply don't have the manpower.

In addition, there's no guarantee that torturing the one would get us the information needed to keep from having to hold the million.

Every police actions against a suspect is a breach of human rights. A smaller breach or a larger one. It's always about doing a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Or, more commonly, doing a greater evil to revenge a lesser one.

But there's quite a lot of difference between putting a person in an 8x10 cell and strapping a car battery to his nuts, isn't there?

Conserative Morality, step back from the computer for a while. Neo Art, don't respond to anything other than on--topic posts. I am losing patience.

I would do the same, except instead of the bolded part, dispose of the body in a way that destroys the traces of torture and looks as legit or makes a safe MIA.

There are more innocent lives that will depend on me in the future, can't risk being unable to save them due to being in prison.

Ah, so you're the kind of person whose willing to break the law as long as you don't actually have to accept the consequences. In other words, a coward.

On the other hand, it is comforting knowing that there are those who would keep the former in check, to punish any wrongdoings, even if the wrongdoings were performed with good intention, in order to keep our system in order. They must, as it is, moniter the moniters . . .

That's my position on it, really.

Not really workable. You have one side who's willing to break the law to do what they want, and you have another bunch who's supposed to enforce the law. The former will never have the resources of the latter by fact that they must operate outside the law and thus be cut off from federal funding, and thus will not be able to catch other criminals as easily as their legal counterparts.

By giving the other faction federal funding though, you've created the modern day NKVD/Gestapo. The resources of a strong government agency and none of the legal barriers. I think I don't need to point out why that it's a terrible idea.


I don't feel confident in saying that New Mitanni would torture those who disagree with him.

This is the same guy who declared anyone not thinking lockstep in him to be equivalent of uruk-hai, worthy only of being destroyed and would sooner see civil war than a democratic president. I think it's a safe bet.

Not really workable. You have one side who's willing to break the law to do what they want, and you have another bunch who's supposed to enforce the law. The former will never have the resources of the latter by fact that they must operate outside the law and thus be cut off from federal funding, and thus will not be able to catch other criminals as easily as their legal counterparts.

By giving the other faction federal funding though, you've created the modern day NKVD/Gestapo. The resources of a strong government agency and none of the legal barriers. I think I don't need to point out why that it's a terrible idea.

The whole premise of the OP is based on expediency, not any sense of morality or protective instincts. Taking a shortcut that might save lives regardless of the actual long term consequences to the nationstate that engages in such practice in stark contrast to its stated positions on them.

Nerds call it the Temptation of the Dark Side. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

This is the same guy who declared anyone not thinking lockstep in him to be equivalent of uruk-hai, worthy only of being destroyed and would sooner see civil war than a democratic president. I think it's a safe bet.

He's also inconsistent on the concept of popular will depending on whether or not it's a position he agrees with.

Propositions 8 and 22 are passed: "It's the will of the people!! Down with judicial activism!!"

Barack Obama is elected President: "FO-ORRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRR!!"

Ah, so you're the kind of person whose willing to break the law as long as you don't actually have to accept the consequences.
No, I'm the kind of a person who doesn't believe in Law (with a capital L), and thus doesn't feel compelled to abide by legislation he disagrees with.



False dilemma. We can only hold people for a limited time period (depending on jurisdiction 24-48 hours). Also, I don't think we've ever detained a million people ever. We simply don't have the manpower.
What about the Japanese-Americans that were arrested and detained during WWII? It perhaps wasn't a million, but definitely a lot.


In addition, there's no guarantee that torturing the one would get us the information needed to keep from having to hold the million.
Guarantees are never present in law enforcement. We have executed more than just a few people proven innocent later.


But there's quite a lot of difference between putting a person in an 8x10 cell and strapping a car battery to his nuts, isn't there?
Quantitative difference, not qualitative.
The same as the difference between $1 and $100 bills. Different printings, one substance - money. Different actions, one substance - legalized rights violations.

And the cell is far from always a nice place. What about penalties? Before the DP is executed, the inmates are held for years in the death row, in absolutely inhumane conditions that can't be described as anything but torture, waiting only to have much more than a car battery strapped to them. And many times we're not 100% sure that they're guilty.

\What about the Japanese-Americans that were arrested and detained during WWII? It perhaps wasn't a million, but definitely a lot.

We shouldn't have done that.

Guarantees are never present in law enforcement. We have executed more than just a few people proven innocent later.

That is regrettable, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Quantitative difference, not qualitative.
The same as the difference between $1 and $100 bills. Different printings, one substance - money. Different actions, one substance - legalized rights violations.

Except torture is an illegal rights violation, and for good reason. That's what this thread is about - permitting illegal rights violations.

And the cell is far from always a nice place. What about penalties? Before the DP is executed, the inmates are held for years in the death row, in absolutely inhumane conditions that can't be described as anything but torture, waiting only to have much more than a car battery strapped to them. And many times we're not 100% sure that they're guilty.

Well, the conditions should be humane. If they're not, we should fix that.

We shouldn't have done that.
That is regrettable, [...]
Well, the conditions should be humane. If they're not, we should fix that.
And that's my point.

The government has legally done and continues to do things even further on the blackness scale.

This is not to say torture should be added to the list of legal activities.
This is to say that we already legally do worse things than interrogative torture, with far less viable justifications, and for far lesser reasons.

This is to say we shouldn't pretend that the law enforcement is wearing white robes and torture is the largest or the darkest stain on them. It's not.

in real life even false info takes weeks to get.


info we'd get from spetsnaz operatives was correct over 90% of the time.





Then again[assuming your not from here] our government's definitions of torture are much different.

The whole premise of the OP is based on expediency, not any sense of morality or protective instincts. Taking a shortcut that might save lives regardless of the actual long term consequences to the nationstate that engages in such practice in stark contrast to its stated positions on them.

Nerds call it the Temptation of the Dark Side. Quicker, easier, more seductive.


The problem of expediency without consideration for the long term is that it's usually self destructive. You might as well build a nuclear reactor without any moderators in it.


He's also inconsistent on the concept of popular will depending on whether or not it's a position he agrees with.

Propositions 8 and 22 are passed: "It's the will of the people!! Down with judicial activism!!"

Barack Obama is elected President: "FO-ORRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRR!!"

Oh, he's very consistent. New Mitanni's idea of popular will is that his will is popular and no one else's is. You have to realize that his ego is a few sizes bigger than us mere mortals.

The poll asks pushes foward a difficult hypothetical that makes us question our emotion and reason, and begs your answer to it.
No it doesn't, it gives us a False Dilemma, without even the 'subtlety' of most ticking bomb arguments. In the instance your describing, you have asked us to believe that the only way to proceed is either to torture or to 'let' a vast atrocity happen.

We could answer the question, but it would be meaningless outside of the blatantly ridiculous scenario you've constructed, the kind of scenario that only appears in scriptwriters heads. Shows like 24 or Battlestar Galactica are basically one long list of False Dilemmas ('torture the baddy or innocents die!', ''blow up the spaceship or the innocents die!') and, though they may be fun to discuss, they're not applicable to the real world. Especially so when you're linking it to real-world policy.

If you really want a run-down of when I do think torture is morally justified, then:

we must have watertight knowledge that there is a bomb and it will go off unless deactivated. Torturing a prisoner becasue of a hunch or a probability of a threat, as in the 24 example you give, is not moral.
the bomb's detonation is immenent, and any delay to finding the bomb will be disastrous.
the disaster about to be caused by the bomb will be so massive, the death toll so huge, that a refusal to torture the prisoner would be moral self-indulgence; sticking to one's principles far beyond any moral obligation. (However, it is debatable whether torture would thus actually be justified, rather than merely excusable or regrettable.)
the torture is the one and only way of retrieving the information needed within the time limit; not that it is the quickest or easiest way. The torture must be the least costliest way it could be morally justified.
the individual undergoing torture is directly responsible for the planting of the bomb. Torturing a friend or associate of the terrorist to get at the truth would be as morally reprehensible as torturing their partner or children.
The torture will directly prevent the mass-catastrophe. If the information gained through torture does no prevent the bomb from exploding, or if the torture takes too much time before the detonation, then there is no point, and more importantly no moral grounds, for inflicting it.

Needless to say, these are big assumptions, and it is extremely unlikely that in a real-world situation, all the above prerequisites would be filled. Thus, the ticking bomb argument does not represent a pragmatic moral argument for the use of torture.

Then again[assuming your not from here] our government's definitions of torture are much different.
From what I've read, in Russia, instead of releasing suspects on bail, they instead stick them into an overcramped maximum security prison, no matter how petty the crime, and keep there until either proven guilty or innocent. The suspects never proven guilty (i.e. presumably innocent) are released after the maximum term possible for the offense without any apology or compensation.
But if they confess while in that suspect prison, they get transferred to a prisoner camp, which is more like a garrison town than a prison, and spend their much shorter sentence with relative freedom and comfort. That way, the cops never have to bother to prove the suspects guilty.

This may not fit the legal definition, but it clearly is torture, no other term for it. And not just widespread, but the standard procedure. A different definition it is indeed.

If you really want a run-down of when I do think torture is morally justified, then:
we must have watertight knowledge that there is a bomb and it will go off unless deactivated. Torturing a prisoner becasue of a hunch or a probability of a threat, as in the 24 example you give, is not moral.
You're being overprotective and overrestrictive here. What about having to find out if there is a bomb in the building with hostages, or if the terrorists actually have orders to blow up?

the bomb's detonation is immenent, and any delay to finding the bomb will be disastrous.
And if it's not imminent, but merely has a high risk? What if it's 99%?

the disaster about to be caused by the bomb will be so massive, the death toll so huge, that a refusal to torture the prisoner would be moral self-indulgence; sticking to one's principles far beyond any moral obligation.
Every life is sacred. Or at least so we're taught. Every person has their path in life, their plans, their family. Exploding a bus full of innocent people is a tragedy enough.

The torture must be the least costliest way it could be morally justified.
Aha. Now here you're right. This was a point I was making as well. If other ways are even worse than torture of one (like arresting all Japanese-Americans), then torture is the way to go.

the individual undergoing torture is directly responsible for the planting of the bomb. Torturing a friend or associate of the terrorist to get at the truth
They also have the option of telling the truth themselves. An accomplice is a guilty person.

The torture will directly prevent the mass-catastrophe.
Indirect works too. If it allows the FBI/CIA to get at the terrorist cell before it gets the materials to plant more bombs, for instance.

Needless to say, these are big assumptions, and it is extremely unlikely that in a real-world situation, all the above prerequisites would be filled.
I can imagine a large number of such situations. Forget the Magic Computer With Big Red Button To Blow Up All Nuclear Plants. Let's get to a more real situation.

Terrorists are holding a building full of hostages. An airport, a stadium, a hospital. They threaten to blow them up if attacked.
This is a very real "ticking bomb" scenario, which has happened more than a few times.

If one of the terrorists, or one from the same cell is captured, he/she most likely knows where the bombs are, or whether there's a central detonator for bomb belts or individual ones, or some other important information, but, of course, won't speak easily. Torturing him to talk can provide SWAT with an opportunity to greatly reduce the death toll. This is a real-life scenario where torture is justified.

Terrorists are holding a building full of hostages. An airport, a stadium, a hospital. They threaten to blow them up if attacked.
This is a very real "ticking bomb" scenario, which has happened more than a few times.

If one of the terrorists, or one from the same cell is captured, he/she most likely knows where the bombs were,

Fixed for accuracy. If I were a terrorist, I'd move the bombs around if one of my own were kidnapped. Or if I had more than one bomb, I'd give them to separate teams to plant them so that compromising one doesn't get the entire network.

If I had one bomb, I'd plant them with the hostages, the most valuable bargaining chip, and have multiple detonators seeded among hostage guards and the perimeter. Observe the Beslan school hostage situation.

Knowing where the bombs are in a hostage situation is usually not very helpful, since the hostages are either sitting next to them or wearing them.

The ticking time bomb scenario with, and this is the important bit, just in time knowledge of bomb locations to save the day doesn't happen in the real world.

You're being overprotective and overrestrictive here. What about having to find out if there is a bomb in the building with hostages, or if the terrorists actually have orders to blow up?
Then you're sanctioning torture merely for information-gathering.

If you're up for that, then you're up for torturing all sorts of people to find out all sorts of info; torturing to find out if a murderer has killed more people than you know of, etc.

And if it's not imminent, but merely has a high risk? What if it's 99%?
Then you're sanctioning torture for hypotheticals.

Every life is sacred. Or at least so we're taught. Every person has their path in life, their plans, their family. Exploding a bus full of innocent people is a tragedy enough.
Your point being...?

They also have the option of telling the truth themselves. An accomplice is a guilty person.
Then you're sanctioning torture of those who are arguably innocent. You might contend that through their silence they are just as guilty, but if you believe that torturing someone's mate because they also know about the plot, then you're down with torturing their spouse who they've confided in, the children they've explained to, etc.

Moreover, you're assuming that this indirectly involved person knows everything about the plot, including real-time details. This would seem highly unlikely; how could you not directly be involved yet know all the details about placement of the bomb, etc.?

Indirect works too. If it allows the FBI/CIA to get at the terrorist cell before it gets the materials to plant more bombs, for instance.
Again, then you're sanctioning torture merely for information-gathering.

EDIT: And, you're sanctioning torture for the prevention of future hypotheticals. You're into some Minority Report shit right there.

Terrorists are holding a building full of hostages... This is a real-life scenario where torture is justified.
As long as the prerequisites above are filled, then it would be.

There's huge details of your story that need to be filled out.

Let's get to a more real situation.

Terrorists are holding a building full of hostages. An airport, a stadium, a hospital. They threaten to blow them up if attacked.
This is a very real "ticking bomb" scenario, which has happened more than a few times.

If one of the terrorists, or one from the same cell is captured, he/she most likely knows where the bombs are, or whether there's a central detonator for bomb belts or individual ones, or some other important information, but, of course, won't speak easily. Torturing him to talk can provide SWAT with an opportunity to greatly reduce the death toll. This is a real-life scenario where torture is justified.

The terrorist can just lie. Ey could give eir interrogator answers that will make it clear to the other terrorists that a SWAT team has entered. Torturing is great at making people speak, but not so good at making them speak the truth. There isn't really a way to make what they say reliable. Also note that the bombs are not necessarily in places where they can be removed. For example, they could be strapped to the hostages, with multiple detonators.

The poll question's phrasing is somewhat ambiguous.
I certainly wouldn't mind to park on two yellow lines to save someone from drowning/a fire/whatever.
However, I would never willfully hurt one person to prevent others from coming to harm. That's wrong on all levels to my mind.

The terrorist can just lie.
Lying to a professional interrogator about critical matters is not quite the same task as lying to your teacher about why you're late to class.
There exist methods of testing the information. The only way one would be able to trick the


Then you're sanctioning torture merely for information-gathering.
If you're up for that, then you're up for torturing all sorts of people to find out all sorts of info; torturing to find out if a murderer has killed more people than you know of, etc.
These are different situations. Information about whether a murderer has killed more people has no or negligible utility value. It can only be used to sentence him for 160 years instead of 80, i.e. jerking off.

That's exactly why the police should not only never be given the privilege to use torture, but should have their current permissions more restricted. Because they very rarely do any actually important work. Just prosecution and deterrence, not prevention.

Information about whether there is a bomb in the building has very high value for prevention. Acting as if there is a bomb leads to massive hostage casualties; acting as if there isn't can lead to even greater ones. Hence, it's critical.

These extreme techniques have to be restricted to special FBI or CIA units. But, then, it's not like CIA is hesitant to use torture anyway, and the veil of secrecy protects them better than a special law could.


Then you're sanctioning torture for hypotheticals.
There's no such thing as 100% sure.


Your point being...?
Trading one life for saving multiple is, as a general rule, the right thing to do.


Then you're sanctioning torture of those who are arguably innocent. You might contend that through their silence they are just as guilty, but if you believe that torturing someone's mate because they also know about the plot, then you're down with torturing their spouse who they've confided in, the children they've explained to, etc.
It's extremely unlikely that the terrorist would explain the details of a heavy-casualty plot to his wife or children. If he has them.
By the way, technically they are guilty, for not informing the authorities.

But no, I'm not arguing for torture of people who are not at least near-certainly guilty.


Moreover, you're assuming that this indirectly involved person knows everything about the plot, including real-time details.
Lie detection techniques (they're not limited to the polygraph) are far from perfect, but, ultimately, provide a good chance of ascertaining whether one genuinely doesn't know or lies that they don't.


Again, then you're sanctioning torture merely for information-gathering.
EDIT: And, you're sanctioning torture for the prevention of future hypotheticals.
You had this response prepared before I even saw the thread title, hadn't you?

It's always possible to describe absolutely anything in utterly positive or in utterly negative terms. The thing is, it's always information-gathering, and it's always a some percentage of risk ("hypothetical" as you call it), not equal to 100%. Even in 24.


As long as the prerequisites above are filled, then it would be.
There's huge details of your story that need to be filled out.
There are no other prerequisites than those described in the scenario.
There is a threat to a large number of lives, someone has high chances of greatly reducing it, said someone refuses to speak, said someone is evidently guilty in the matter.

Well, in the case proposed by the series, the man is in custody, so his information can be testied and verified.

If you've time to test and verify its not a 'ticking bomb' so theres no need to torture in the first place.

More could be garnered from grabbing the history of his phone calls, more again by leaving him loose and tapping the calls, following him about.

Lying to a professional interrogator about critical matters is not quite the same task as lying to your teacher about why you're late to class.
There exist methods of testing the information. The only way one would be able to trick the


You seemed to miss the bit where it was mentioned that the bombs could be set up to be almost impossible to disable. What would you do if they were strapped to the hostages, with multiple detonators? Also, in a ticking bomb situation there isn't necessarily time to check, and the terrorist doesn't necessarily know where the bombs are (ey might only know where, for example, the one ey planted is (or was)).

These are different situations. Information about whether a murderer has killed more people has no or negligible utility value.
Tell that to the families of missing persons.

No matter; you're still positing that torture should be allowed for general information gathering, rather than prevention of immediate threat.

There's no such thing as 100% sure.
Sure, but there's a difference between prevention of a threat and prevention of a hypothetical.

Trading one life for saving multiple is, as a general rule, the right thing to do.
Only if one subscribes to certain consequentialist ethical standpoints. Which I don't.

We could also say, for example, that as a 'general rule' rights trump the good.

It's extremely unlikely that the terrorist would explain the details of a heavy-casualty plot to his wife or children. If he has them.
By the way, technically they are guilty, for not informing the authorities.
And thus eligible for torture?

Again though, that's not my main point. On the issue of the ticking bomb, how is torturing someone without direct involvement of the bomb plot pragmatic, never mind moral?

But no, I'm not arguing for torture of people who are not at least near-certainly guilty.
The phrase 'near-certainly guilty' is rather worrying.

Lie detection techniques (they're not limited to the polygraph) are far from perfect, but, ultimately, provide a good chance of ascertaining whether one genuinely doesn't know or lies that they don't.
I am under the impression that lie detection techniques are not able to pick up upon unknown truths.

If you can clearly ascertain whether a person is telling the truth about a plot, surely you already know about the plot's details?

You had this response prepared before I even saw the thread title, hadn't you?
I've refuted the illegitimacy that is the ticking bomb argument before, yes.

It's always possible to describe absolutely anything in utterly positive or in utterly negative terms. The thing is, it's always information-gathering, and it's always a some percentage of risk ("hypothetical" as you call it), not equal to 100%. Even in 24.
But we're discussing information-gathering as the ends of torture, rather than simply a Orwellian description of torture.

I'm contending that the ends of torture have to be the direct prevention of an imminent threat.

There are no other prerequisites than those described in the scenario.
Of course there are; certainties of information, likelihood of prevention, scale of destruction, timeframe, etc.

Fixed for accuracy. If I were a terrorist, I'd move the bombs around if one of my own were kidnapped.
You're always the Mr.Prepared... In real situations, the terrorists do not have much luxury about their actions. And them moving the bombs could well be traceable.
Also, the captured terrorist doesn't have to be one of them. It's more likely for him to be merely a planner from the same cell, or someone presumed dead.


Or if I had more than one bomb, I'd give them to separate teams to plant them so that compromising one doesn't get the entire network.
That's what a special forces unit would do. Terrorists, especially those ready to blow themselves up, are likely to not be disciplined enough to compartmentalize everything and leak no information to each other.


If I had one bomb, I'd plant them with the hostages, the most valuable bargaining chip, and have multiple detonators seeded among hostage guards and the perimeter. Observe the Beslan school hostage situation.
Knowing where the bombs are in a hostage situation is usually not very helpful, since the hostages are either sitting next to them or wearing them.

And that all is valuable information. Are the detonators among the guards, or among the perimeter, or both?

Also, observe the Nord-Ost hostage situation. 130 hostages died from the gas used by the SWAT. Use of gas could have been a decision that saved the rest 700. Or, it could have been a disastrous mistake, if the terrorists weren't actually as willing to go through with blowing themselves up as they claimed.

Knowledge of the exact nature of the bombs could also have prompted a decision to assault without using semi-lethal WMD. Specifically, the bombs were insufficient to pose a risk of collapsing the building. If the specifics were known, it's possible than a direct assault could have resulted in lower hostage casualties. Just possible. Any information can be crucial in anti-terrorist action.

In real situations, the terrorists do not have much luxury about their actions...

That's what a special forces unit would do. Terrorists, especially those ready to blow themselves up, are likely to not be disciplined enough to compartmentalize everything and leak no information to each other.
Are you a member of an anti-terrorist special forces group, or an expert on the psychology of suicidal militants?

How do you know such things?

That's what a special forces unit would do. Terrorists, especially those ready to blow themselves up, are likely to not be disciplined enough to compartmentalize everything and leak no information to each other.


Hehehehe...yeah. I mean, if you've got the nadgers to go on a undercover mission for a few years, knowing that at the end of it you die, theres no way you'd be able to keep yer yammer shut. 'Theyz stoopid'.

Rather than one of my characteristic inflammatory opinions

You, inflammatory? Never.

Anyway in answer to the poll I chose option one. Sometimes you have to break the law, or even kill, to save lives.

No matter; you're still positing that torture should be allowed for general information gathering, rather than prevention of immediate threat.
"People should drive four-wheeled vehicles, not cars!"

It should be used for information gathering if it is helps to better resolve an immediate threat, such as a hostage situation.


Sure, but there's a difference between prevention of a threat and prevention of a hypothetical.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 100% CERTAINTY.

Any threat is always uncertain, or "hypothetical" as you call it. For all you know, the ticking bomb could have no detonator.


Again though, that's not my main point. On the issue of the ticking bomb, how is torturing someone without direct involvement of the bomb plot pragmatic, never mind moral?
You're misrepresenting the argument "torture might be acceptable in some once-in-a-lifetime circumstances", replacing it with a strawman of "we must torture people whether it's useful or not".


The phrase 'near-certainly guilty' is rather worrying.
It's always only a near certainty.


I've refuted the illegitimacy that is the ticking bomb argument before, yes.
You've refuted strawmen. I noticed that your reply was prepared beforehand because it didn't match the argument.


But we're discussing information-gathering as the ends of torture, rather than simply a Orwellian description of torture.
I'm contending that the ends of torture have to be the direct prevention of an imminent threat.
Of course there are; certainties of information, likelihood of prevention, scale of destruction, timeframe, etc.
And information-gathering can be part of the direct prevention of an imminent threat.


I am under the impression that lie detection techniques are not able to pick up upon unknown truths.
If you can clearly ascertain whether a person is telling the truth about a plot, surely you already know about the plot's details?
No. Words are only half of the speech. The non-verbal half, not controlled by the speaker, says just as much. You can analyze what the person feels when telling you the information. Whether they feel the guilt for betraying their accomplices or the satisfaction of fooling you.

Lying is harder than it seems to most people, who have never lied to anyone not eager themselves to trust you. An advice: unless you've imagined, perfected, detailed and relived your lie so much that you need to remind yourself it's not the truth, don't even bother trying to fool as much as a police detective.
It is easy to tell when one is making things up on the spot. It's not hard at all to detect a well-practiced story either. One should use some of the special techniques of preparing the lie.

But even then, there is a relatively small number of people who can stand up to a good interrogation, and these are either naturals or thoroughly trained intelligence agents.

That's all without the polygraph and cross-checking. Fooling both a good interrogator and the polygraph test is a rare achievement, because they work differently.
And people good enough to pull that off have better things to do than being grunts in a suicidal bombing attack. For instance, coordinating those attacks from a clean, well-lit, air-conditioned office in DC or NY.

If you've time to test and verify its not a 'ticking bomb' so theres no need to torture in the first place.
"Ticking bomb" situations tend to be 2-3 days, not even the Bauer-standard 6-8 hours.

Also, you just need to check a few details. A common method is baiting him into believing you trust him, and then lead him into telling a verifiable lie or truth.


You seemed to miss the bit where it was mentioned that the bombs could be set up to be almost impossible to disable.
Then we at least don't bother trying to disable them. Even small bits of information can save or end tens of lives.


Also, in a ticking bomb situation there isn't necessarily time to check, and the terrorist doesn't necessarily know where the bombs are (ey might only know where, for example, the one ey planted is (or was)).
Then try to analyze whether he actually doesn't know, or does. Then either change the topic or use extreme interrogation, depending on the result.

You're always the Mr.Prepared... In real situations, the terrorists do not have much luxury about their actions. And them moving the bombs could well be traceable.

There are two kinds of terrorists. The ones who do a piss poor job overall and are little better at it than the average bank robbers, or the ones who both have a plan of action, and have rehearsed them to work out the kinks. The latter sort will have at least fallback plans when the enemy starts attacking. The Moscow theater ones and the ones in Beslan certainly did, as did the ones who seized the planes back in 2001. And don't even get me started on the ones who shot up Mumbai.

It is a mistake to assume that you'll only face untrained and unprepared terrorist.


Also, the captured terrorist doesn't have to be one of them. It's more likely for him to be merely a planner from the same cell, or someone presumed dead.


Presumed dead in the terrorist group, with no body? Simple paranoia will put paid to that idea. As for the planner, he's likely far, far away by the time the situation happens. Not every hostage situation will take as long as the Iranian embassy hostage situation did.


That's what a special forces unit would do. Terrorists, especially those ready to blow themselves up, are likely to not be disciplined enough to compartmentalize everything and leak no information to each other.

Even better then. Individual armed suicide units with the discretion to blow themselves up.


And that all is valuable information. Are the detonators among the guards, or among the perimeter, or both?

Valuable? Maybe. But actionable? Unlikely, unless you can kill everyone without a single alarm being raised.

But this strays far from the field. The question is of torture, its validity in information gathering and the consequence of its use as a legal tool.

I state that it is of questionable validity at best, and the consequence of its use as a legal tool is the slippery slope. A simple example would be tasers. The police aren't allowed to shoot anyone they please with their guns. But the restrictions for taser use are much lower. That has led to a greater trigger happy attitude when it comes to tasering, even when the person is already subdued and compliant.

Thereby, torture would go the same way. The easy first option for everything and anything.

It should be used for information gathering if it is helps to better resolve an immediate threat, such as a hostage situation.
I'd question whether torture could extract information that would be immediately and timely useful in a hostage situation, but if it could be shown to be the case, then one could alter the ticking bomb argument in such a way.

Any threat is always uncertain, or "hypothetical" as you call it.
You miss my point.

I'm arguing against torturing someone in a case where there might hypothetically be a atrocity, such as in the OP's example/ My position would change if a threat was immediate and preventable.

You're misrepresenting the argument "torture might be acceptable in some once-in-a-lifetime circumstances", replacing it with a strawman of "we must torture people whether it's useful or not".
No, I'm not.

I assumed you were saying, from what you wrote, that torture of an indirectly involved accomplice would generate useful information.

You've refuted strawmen.
Please demonstrate how.

I noticed that your reply was prepared beforehand because it didn't match the argument.
You're mistaken.

You posited that it would be morally correct for an organisation to torture "to get at the terrorist cell before it gets the materials to plant more bombs, for instance".

I'm replying that this is torture merely for the sake of a hypothetical future danger, which is as illegitimate as imprisoning someone for a hypothetical future crime, or for non-immediate information gathering.

And information-gathering can be part of the direct prevention of an imminent threat.
I'll repeat: But you're discussing information-gathering as the ends of torture, rather than simply a Orwellian description of torture.

The ends of 'legitimate torture' is the prevention of an immediate threat, not information-gathering.

No. Words are only half of the speech. The non-verbal half, not controlled by the speaker, says just as much. You can analyze what the person feels when telling you the information...

It is easy to tell when one is making things up on the spot. It's not hard at all to detect a well-practiced story either...

But even then, there is a relatively small number of people who can stand up to a good interrogation, and these are either naturals or thoroughly trained intelligence agents.
Again, I'd be delighted to know of your experiences in the fields of psychology, counter-insurgency, etc., along with an explanation of how we can tell with certainty whether someone is lying about the information extracted under physical and/or psychological stress.

I'd question whether torture could extract information that would be immediately and timely useful in a hostage situation, but if it could be shown to be the case, then one could alter the ticking bomb argument in such a way.
If there is information in the suspect, extreme interrogation most likely can extract it, in a timely and reliable manner. Counter-intelligence agencies using it says something.

If there is said information, torture might be a justified means.

If there's no high likelihood of such information in the suspect, the question is pointless, since no one [sane] would consider torturing the subject anyway.


I assumed you were saying, from what you wrote, that torture of an indirectly involved accomplice would generate useful information.
Well, if it might, it may be justified to use extreme means.


You posited that it would be morally correct for an organisation to torture "to get at the terrorist cell before it gets the materials to plant more bombs, for instance".
I'm replying that this is torture merely for the sake of a hypothetical future danger, which is as illegitimate as imprisoning someone for a hypothetical future crime, or for non-immediate information gathering.
Oh, but the main reason we imprison people is to prevent hypothetical future crimes. And most times, these people aren't even career criminals, so the chance we imprison them for is very small.

The use of the terms "terrorist cell" should make it clear that I'm talking about a very well verified terrorist cell, not a random guy who has downloaded the Cookbook.


Again, I'd be delighted to know of your experiences in the fields of psychology, counter-insurgency, etc., along with an explanation of how we can tell with certainty whether someone is lying about the information extracted under physical and/or psychological stress.
Counter-insurgency: Nothing special except for military officer school.

Lie detection: I've had a practical interest in the field of non-verbal reading and specifically lie detection for a long while, both for the purposes of being better informed, at early stage, learning to conceal my lies.
Although later I've abandoned the second cause, if the person wants to believe you, they will anyway, otherwise it's futile for someone like me who lacks the talent or a good reason to develop the skill.

I'm far from an expert or indeed a quarterway qualified person in lie detection, but one thing I've learned is how far I am, and how well-advanced the field actually is.

If there is information in the suspect, extreme interrogation most likely can extract it, in a timely and reliable manner.
I don't see how we can state that as a general maxim, or something to base justification of torture on.

Counter-intelligence agencies using it says something.
It may say something, but it says little about the moral dimensions of torture.

Oh, but the main reason we imprison people is to prevent hypothetical future crimes.
I'd dispute this.

I think it's fair to say that imprisonment is generally seen as a punishment rather than a prevention. Even those theories of punishment which stress prevention have retributive measures to them, and are talking about the prevention of others doing crime, rather than imprisoning a person to prevent them from doing future bad deeds. Thus, accused criminals are tried on evidence of past crimes, not examined to see if they will reoffend.

The exception are those unfortunate psychopaths and sociopaths who have little or no control over their actions, and thus cannot be trusted not to reoffend.

And I wouldn't want to cast all terrorists as having serious mental problems.

Counter-insurgency: Nothing special except for military officer school.

Lie detection: I've had a practical interest in the field of non-verbal reading and specifically lie detection for a long while...
Then, with all due respect, I don't think you talk confidently about the mental state or tactics of a 'typical' terrorist (cell).

"Give me Dick Cheney, an hour and a waterboard and i can get a confession to the Sharon Tate murder." -Jessie Ventura

No. I would not torture anyone.

Instead, I would use any of the faster and more effective techniques available to interrogators.

No. I would not torture anyone.

Instead, I would use any of the faster and more effective techniques available to interrogators.

What are those faster and more effective techniques?

I also agree that torture is an extremely faulty method of interrogation, completely ignoring the issue of it being a fudamental violation of human rights I could never support under any circumstances.

I don't see how we can state that as a general maxim, or something to base justification of torture on.
It may say something, but it says little about the moral dimensions of torture.
It says that torture works. It's immoral, and I'm against allowing the government to use it, because the government is the last organization I would ever trust. But it's not ineffective.


I'd dispute this.
I think it's fair to say that imprisonment is generally seen as a punishment rather than a prevention.
Maybe in Europe. In US, imprisonment tends to have the preventive factor stressed. Hence things like prison terms ridiculously disproportionate to the offense and lifetime imprisonment for "three strikes".

And even revenge ("punishment"), ultimately, is a mechanism of deterrence, which is part of prevention.


And I wouldn't want to cast all terrorists as having serious mental problems.
I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that the average terrorist bombing grunt is unlikely to have the skills and the abilities required to successfully fool the interrogators.


Then, with all due respect, I don't think you talk confidently about the mental state or tactics of a 'typical' terrorist (cell).
Can you?

If you have anti-terrorist operations training, and/or are a professional interrogator of any kind, I humbly pass the soapbox.

If not, we have to do with what we've got.
You might notice, if backtracking the responses, that here I was talking about certain specialists being able to tell lie from truth. It has nothing to do with the mental state or the tactics of a terrorist group.

It has to do with the two simple facts. First, humans, terrorist or not, tell truths and lies in different ways; one involves telling from the real memory ("video"), another from a verbal story ("text"), and the differences can be used to evaluate the statement. Second, humans, terrorist or not, deliver as much information non-verbally as they do verbally, if not more, and have no conscious control over the non-verbal means.
People whose profession involves interrogation are aware of these facts and their implications. A professional interrogation has a good chance of telling a truth from a lie.

It says that torture works. It's immoral, and I'm against allowing the government to use it, because the government is the last organization I would ever trust. But it's not ineffective.
Perhaps in certain situations.

I admit I'm no expert on the matter, but from what I've read it's highly unreliable, especially in these ticking bomb scenarios we're discussing.

Maybe in Europe. In US, imprisonment tends to have the preventive factor stressed. Hence things like prison terms ridiculously disproportionate to the offense and lifetime imprisonment for "three strikes".
OK, but that's a different kind of prevention.

What you're describing is a system which attempts to prevent potential criminals in general from committing crimes by making an example of a specific criminal.

What I'm objecting to is imprisonment/torture of a person because it is suspected that that person will commit crimes in the future.

And even revenge ("punishment"), ultimately, is a mechanism of deterrence, which is part of prevention.
I'd draw a sharp distinction between revenge and punishment, as would any legal theorist I know of.

Moreover, I don't think revenge is always about deterrence. Surely, for the most part, it's about getting your own back, and only tangentially about deterring others from wronging you?

(We're getting more and more OT.)

I'm not.
I wasn't suggesting you were.

I'm simply pointing out that the average terrorist bombing grunt is unlikely to have the skills and the abilities required to successfully fool the interrogators.
As we've shown, neither of us are experts in the field, so I don't feel we can confidently say what the 'average' terrorist/interrogator can or cannot do.

info we'd get from spetsnaz operatives was correct over 90% of the time.





Then again[assuming your not from here] our government's definitions of torture are much different.
well are you up on jargon.

i have no idea what that means so id like an explanation and a link.

Perhaps in certain situations.
I admit I'm no expert on the matter, but from what I've read it's highly unreliable, especially in these ticking bomb scenarios we're discussing.
Are there any statistics? If not, it's hard to understand how could the reliability be gauged. Especially the reliability in these ticking bomb scenarios, of which you say there are none, and I say there is maybe one a year, and in (virtually) none did the government agencies have a terrorist to torture. This hints that the statistics may be based on a sample of 0.


OK, but that's a different kind of prevention.
What you're describing is a system which attempts to prevent potential criminals in general from committing crimes by making an example of a specific criminal.
Not exactly. Whenever talk about shortening the sentences or repelling the "three strikes" laws comes up, the main argument pushed is always "Do you want to release thousands of criminals into the society?".


What I'm objecting to is imprisonment/torture of a person because it is suspected that that person will commit crimes in the future.
Then address the three strikes law. People serving life for three counts of Petty Theft. This is not reasonable punishment by any standard, and especially not reasonable compared to other penalties. This is imprisonment of a person because it is suspected that that person will commit crimes in the future.


I'd draw a sharp distinction between revenge and punishment, as would any legal theorist I know of.
Sure. It's punishment when done by the gov't, and revenge when done by anyone else.
Or what other difference is there?


Moreover, I don't think revenge is always about deterrence. Surely, for the most part, it's about getting your own back, and only tangentially about deterring others from wronging you?
On the most superficial emotional level, perhaps. But this behavior has, like any other, its evolutionary roots. And these are very clear - revenge increases your chances of survival by deterring others from crossing your path again.


As we've shown, neither of us are experts in the field, so I don't feel we can confidently say what the 'average' terrorist/interrogator can or cannot do.
I can't confidently say, but I'm fairly certain the average terrorist doesn't have the special training to trick the interrogators. Of course, if he's ex-intelligence, he likely has such training, but the thing is, such a person won't be a grunt. If you're so concerned about the grunts being interrogated, it's much easier to just glue some bombs to them than play Xanatos gambits.

I can confidently say what the average interrogator can do, because I've had the experience. It's a whole other level than the most intense 'civil' interviews or wherever your words are scrutinized in the normal life.

But the thing is, an average interrogator won't be within a mile's radius. It will be one of the best CIA interrogators on this coast at least.
I can't say what they can do. But I guess quite a bit more. Especially when armed with the ability to go beyond just mental pressure.

You, inflammatory? Never.

:D

I no longer submit inflammatory posts, nor do I respond to them.

Not really workable. You have one side who's willing to break the law to do what they want, and you have another bunch who's supposed to enforce the law. The former will never have the resources of the latter by fact that they must operate outside the law and thus be cut off from federal funding, and thus will not be able to catch other criminals as easily as their legal counterparts.


By giving the other faction federal funding though, you've created the modern day NKVD/Gestapo. The resources of a strong government agency and none of the legal barriers. I think I don't need to point out why that it's a terrible idea.
I'm not proposing that some government institutions be given the ability to act over the law, I'm saying that should the opporunity arise when something like torture would be needed in order to save the lives, there be those who volunteer to do it, and the organization turns a blind eye towards at the moment. Then, when all is said and done, the individual[s] who broke the law can be brought into court upon what they have done, and let the courts rule on the decision over whether or not the invidiauls that tortured should be punished, based on a case by case basis. Basically, I want the law to say 'no, we don't torture', but I want there to be individuals in our government that, when faced with a seemingly impossible decision, would break the law in order to do the right thing . . . and would then have to pay the consequences after based on the court's ruling.

It's just not a black and white issue to me, and while I think the opportunity that we'd HAVE to resort to using torture, when there would be nothing else we could do, is not often and indeed quite rare, it would be naive to think that it does/could never happen . . .


This is the same guy who declared anyone not thinking lockstep in him to be equivalent of uruk-hai, worthy only of being destroyed and would sooner see civil war than a democratic president. I think it's a safe bet.
What is Uruk-Hai? I don't speak whatever language that is.

I'm not proposing that some government institutions be given the ability to act over the law, I'm saying that should the opporunity arise when something like torture would be needed in order to save the lives, there be those who volunteer to do it, and the organization turns a blind eye towards at the moment. Then, when all is said and done, the individual[s] who broke the law can be brought into court upon what they have done, and let the courts rule on the decision over whether or not the invidiauls that tortured should be punished, based on a case by case basis. Basically, I want the law to say 'no, we don't torture', but I want there to be individuals in our government that, when faced with a seemingly impossible decision, would break the law in order to do the right thing . . . and would then have to pay the consequences after based on the court's ruling.

I can't say I've watched 24 on any kind of a regular basis. However, there probably are just such people already, who break the law for what they perceive to be "the greater good." Rarely, though, is "the greater good" even similar to what they are thinking, and rarely still can everyone agree on what "the greater good" is. These people, despite whatever intentions they have, should be brought in, taken to court, and prosecuted for their crimes.

It's just not a black and white issue to me, and while I think the opportunity that we'd HAVE to resort to using torture, when there would be nothing else we could do, is not often and indeed quite rare, it would be naive to think that it does/could never happen . . .

And if anyone engages in it, they should be prosecuted as any other criminal.

What is Uruk-Hai? I don't speak whatever language that is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/africa_enl_1063967571/img/1.jpg

What is Uruk-Hai? I don't speak whatever language that is.
http://www.sideshowtoy.com/mas_assets/jpg/9442_image02.jpg

What are those things? Are those Uruk-Hai? I don't follow/like Lord of the Rings.

What are those things? Are those Uruk-Hai? I don't follow/like Lord of the Rings.

Yes, those are Uruk-Hai.

I'm not proposing that some government institutions be given the ability to act over the law, I'm saying that should the opporunity arise when something like torture would be needed in order to save the lives, there be those who volunteer to do it, and the organization turns a blind eye towards at the moment. Then, when all is said and done, the individual[s] who broke the law can be brought into court upon what they have done, and let the courts rule on the decision over whether or not the invidiauls that tortured should be punished, based on a case by case basis. Basically, I want the law to say 'no, we don't torture', but I want there to be individuals in our government that, when faced with a seemingly impossible decision, would break the law in order to do the right thing . . . and would then have to pay the consequences after based on the court's ruling.

It's just not a black and white issue to me, and while I think the opportunity that we'd HAVE to resort to using torture, when there would be nothing else we could do, is not often and indeed quite rare, it would be naive to think that it does/could never happen . . .

Are you OK with murder too?

Are you OK with murder too?
We all are OK with government-perpetrated murder, except it's so common that we don't even call it murder.

These terrorists would normally be shot anyway. The only question is whether anti-terrorist forces should have the right to take one alive and extract information before killing him if that information is critical importance, or should they not.

We all are OK with government-perpetrated murder, except it's so common that we don't even call it murder.

Speak for yourself.

Speak for yourself.
So you hold a belief that the government shouldn't kill terrorists? How interesting. Maybe handing out candy will work.

So you hold a belief that the government shouldn't kill terrorists? How interesting. Maybe handing out candy will work.

Maybe illegal extrajudicial killings won't.

Are you OK with murder too?
When the American Military shot and killed those Pirates that were holding that American national hostage at gunpoint, was that murder?

When the American Military shot and killed those Pirates that were holding that American national hostage at gunpoint, was that murder?

I believe that was a legal and justifiable killing.

You're talking about someone (illegally) torturing someone else. You say you're fine with that. So I ask again: Are you fine with murder as well?

I believe that was a legal and justifiable killing.Legal? How so? What laws are there that say it's ok to kill a pirate to extinguish a threat but not ok to torture a terrorist to extinguish a threat? Justifiable....well that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who think it's not justifiable for the American military to snipe Somali pirates.

I believe that was a legal and justifiable killing.
You're talking about someone (illegally) torturing someone else.
The rest of us, at least, is not talking about illegally torturing someone else. We're talking about allowing certain agencies to perform legal and justifiable torture.

Legal? How so? What laws are there that say it's ok to kill a pirate to extinguish a threat but not ok to torture a terrorist to extinguish a threat? Justifiable....well that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who think it's not justifiable for the American military to snipe Somali pirates.

Ok, I hope Gravlen doesn't beat me to this, but there is a doctrine called "imminent harm."

Definition: An imminent harm is an immediate and present threat of harm. Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed.

So, you have to have imminent harm. I.E., if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to blow up, or if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to shoot me, or that guy.

Legal? How so? What laws are there that say it's ok to kill a pirate to extinguish a threat but not ok to torture a terrorist to extinguish a threat? Justifiable....well that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who think it's not justifiable for the American military to snipe Somali pirates.

Dodging the question? No surprise.

The rest of us, at least, is not talking about illegally torturing someone else. We're talking about allowing certain agencies to perform legal and justifiable torture.
Guess you haven't read the thread. Try again.

I know that people everywhere have their own knee-jerk reactions to the issue, but is it possbile that it's not black or white? That torture is bad and should be illegal, but there are times when we must negotiate with our own values in order to save those around us? Is it possible that we can find ourselves logically taking one side and emotionally taking another?

I'm not proposing that some government institutions be given the ability to act over the law, I'm saying that should the opporunity arise when something like torture would be needed in order to save the lives, there be those who volunteer to do it, and the organization turns a blind eye towards at the moment. Then, when all is said and done, the individual[s] who broke the law can be brought into court upon what they have done, and let the courts rule on the decision over whether or not the invidiauls that tortured should be punished, based on a case by case basis. Basically, I want the law to say 'no, we don't torture', but I want there to be individuals in our government that, when faced with a seemingly impossible decision, would break the law in order to do the right thing . . . and would then have to pay the consequences after based on the court's ruling.

So, you have to have imminent harm. I.E., if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to blow up, or if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to shoot me, or that guy.
But when criminals try to leave the crime scene, they pose no imminent threat right now, yet the cops do shoot at them if necessary.

But when criminals try to leave the crime scene, they pose no imminent threat right now, yet the cops do shoot at them if necessary.

Actually, they generally give chase, unless the person starts shooting at them, or driving in a manner that becomes an imminent harm to other drivers, or something along those lines. Then, police begin shooting.

What are those things? Are those Uruk-Hai? I don't follow/like Lord of the Rings.

yes.

from http://www.patriotresource.com/lotr/races/urukhai.html
The Uruk-hai are the product of Saruman's attempts to create a fighter that improved on Orcs by being far stronger and unaffected by sunlight. It is theorized that they resulted from breeding of Orcs and Men. There were also apparently Uruk-hai in Mordor in the service of Sauron, although these don't seem to appear onscreen in the films. It is unknown whether these Uruk-hai are directly related to Saruman's breed of Uruk-hai.



or if you prefere, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk-hai).

Dodging the question? No surprise.
No, I'm not. I'm just to get to see what you consider 'murder', which from the way you posed the question towards me, you probably oppose.
Ok, I hope Gravlen doesn't beat me to this, but there is a doctrine called "imminent harm."

Definition: An imminent harm is an immediate and present threat of harm. Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed.

So, you have to have imminent harm. I.E., if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to blow up, or if I don't shoot him right now, he's going to shoot me, or that guy.
What about if someone were to rob a bank, shot a few people, taken the money and fled with the police in pursuit on foot? The police would shoot him down rather than let him escape, if the situation deemed it necessary. . . .

What about if someone were to rob a bank, shot a few people, taken the money and fled with the police in pursuit on foot? The police would shoot him down rather than let him escape, if the situation deemed it necessary. . . .

No they would not. Not unless he took out his gun and started waving it around during the pursuit, causing a threat of imminent harm. Until that point, they would keep chasing until they caught him.

Legal? How so? What laws are there that say it's ok to kill a pirate to extinguish a threat but not ok to torture a terrorist to extinguish a threat? Justifiable....well that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are a great deal of people who think it's not justifiable for the American military to snipe Somali pirates.

A pirate is a direct and obvious threat. The guy is there with a gun pointed at someone elses head. It doesnt take a scientist to determine direct threat here. However,who is the terrorist? What evidence do we have that that person is indeed a terrorist? What evidence do we have that the alleged terrorist even has any knowledge that we seek? Unless we have answers to these questions there is far less direct justification and you leave open the possibility of punishing the innocent.

unless the person starts shooting at them, or driving in a manner that becomes an imminent harm to other drivers, or something along those lines.
So, killing a person who is driving fast because you force them to, to prevent them from possibly damaging a few other cars is something you consider a justified measure?

No, I'm not. I'm just to get to see what you consider 'murder', which from the way you posed the question towards me, you probably oppose.
Alright, since you need spoon-feeding:

Do you oppose outright, cold-blooded murder on a suspected terrorist, bound to a chair, unable to defend himself and/or escape? Or would you be OK with that?

...if possibly, hypothetically, doing so could save lives in the long run?

No they would not. Not unless he took out his gun and started waving it around during the pursuit, causing a threat of imminent harm. Until that point, they would keep chasing until they caught him.
I seriously doubt that, but even so. How is one man with a pistol more of an imminent threat than a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb that could kill thousnads? Laws are designed and exist, at the end of the day, to protect and keep in stability our socities. Breaking an anti-torture law would be bad, true, but it would cause a lot less destablization and harm to our society than a bomb going off. Aside from causing the deaths and harms of innocent civilians, it hurts the economy because it scares people from going out, from living normal lives, from buying, from traveling etc etc. In conclusion, it destablizes society far more.

So, killing a person who is driving fast because they broke a law and are being pursued by law enforcement legally and justly, to prevent them from killing one or more innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with it is something you consider a justified measure?

Fixed, and yes.

Also, driving fast is not a justification for using deadly force. Being out of control of your vehicle and posing an imminent and deadly harm to other drivers is.

I seriously doubt that, but even so. How is one man with a pistol more of an imminent threat than a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb that could kill thousnads?

I see you didn't read my definition of Imminent Harm.

Do you oppose outright, cold-blooded murder on a suspected terrorist, bound to a chair, unable to defend himself and/or escape? Or would you be OK with that?
It's called Death Penalty. Except they have to be proven guilty, but we're talking about clear-cut cases here too.

It's called Death Penalty. Except they have to be proven guilty, but we're talking about clear-cut cases here too.

Get back to me whan you've read the thread, and don't waste my time with spam, m'kay?

Alright, since you need spoon-feeding:

Do you oppose outright, cold-blooded murder on a suspected terrorist, bound to a chair, unable to defend himself and/or escape? Or would you be OK with that?

...if possibly, hypothetically, doing so could save lives in the long run?
No, murdering said man does not give you information that could save lives, it just removes him from our universe. Torturing him, however, may give you information that would save lives.

No, I'm not. I'm just to get to see what you consider 'murder', which from the way you posed the question towards me, you probably oppose.

What about if someone were to rob a bank, shot a few people, taken the money and fled with the police in pursuit on foot? The police would shoot him down rather than let him escape, if the situation deemed it necessary. . . .

and after such shooting, you can bet those officers and the incident will be reviewed and investigated to see if the situation was deemed necessary. and if not, those officers will be punished accordingly. there really isn't any blanket stance that can cover every contingency. and for this thread's Jack Bauer example. remember how this season started... with him being investigated for his and the CTU's actions.

It's called Death Penalty. Except they have to be proven guilty, but we're talking about clear-cut cases here too. and even then, those on DP gets two appeals as well as a mandatory review of the case.

Anyway, the solution to keeping our laws intact and extracting information from people we know have something to say but won't help us.......is to simply send them to Jordan or Egypt......

See no evil, hear no evil . . .

and after such shooting, you can bet those officers and the incident will be reviewed and investigated to see if the situation was deemed necessary. and if not, those officers will be punished accordingly.

Point of order:

In Florida, any officer involved in a fatal shooting works a desk until the case has been reviewed and the officer found to have acted within good prudence and within the law.

Depending on the circumstances involved, this investigation can take anywhere from a few days to 6 months.

Fixed, and yes.
The fix stretches and colors it.

"...because they broke a law and are being pursued by law enforcement legally and justly" - a longer unwinding of "because you forced them to".

"...to prevent them from killing one or more innocent bystanders" - but with a very small probability, as most crashes in modern cars end in airbags going off and a few bruises.


Also, driving fast is not a justification for using deadly force. Being out of control of your vehicle and posing an imminent and deadly harm to other drivers is.
But aren't the cops really the ones here who are to blame for creating imminent and deadly harm? If the suspect wasn't being pursued, he wouldn't be out of control of the vehicle.

(And yes - if he didn't become a suspect, he wouldn't be pursued - but we're holding cops to a higher standard, aren't we?)

No, murdering said man does not give you information that could save lives, it just removes him from our universe. Torturing him, however, may give you information that would save lives.

So you would be OK with potentially destroying his life, but not actually killing him, for any potential information that he might give (and that you could get through other means). OK. Was that so hard?

Welcome to Israel.

The fix stretches and colors it.

"...because they broke a law and are being pursued by law enforcement legally and justly" - a longer unwinding of "because you forced them to".

"...to prevent them from killing one or more innocent bystanders" - but with a very small probability, as most crashes in modern cars end in airbags going off and a few bruises.

The fix is exactly what it's supposed to be. Yes, the police are chasing the suspect. No, the suspect doesn't have to run. No, the suspect doesn't have to run in such a way to cause imminent harm to other people.

Granted, he may have a better shot at escaping by running that way, but he also has a greater shot of getting killed in the process.

Also, all chases - on foot or by vehicle - are to be done with the utmost respect for the sanctity of life. If there is a way to end the chase without killing the suspect or any bystanders, by God, that's the first choice.

But aren't the cops really the ones here who are to blame for creating imminent and deadly harm? If the suspect wasn't being pursued, he wouldn't be out of control of the vehicle.

(And yes - if he didn't become a suspect, he wouldn't be pursued - but we're holding cops to a higher standard, aren't we?)

And you answered your own question. If we cannot enforce law and order, what's the point in even having police officers? The suspect is to blame for the situation.

Also, in many situations, if a person is driving way beyond their (or the vehicle's) abilities, the police response is back off and give him a little room while pursuing him via helicopter. This is in the hope that the suspect will relax and drive within his abilities - causing a lesser danger - without letting him get away.

Anyway, the solution to keeping our laws intact and extracting information from people we know have something to say but won't help us.......is to simply send them to Jordan or Egypt......

See no evil, hear no evil . . .
Can you say "accessory"?

remember how this season started... with him being investigated for his and the CTU's actions.
Cosnequences? In the 24 universe? HA!

So you would be OK with potentially destroying his life, but not actually killing him, for any potential information that he might give (and that you could get through other means). OK. Was that so hard?
Obviously said torture would only be used if said information couldn't be gotten through other means, thus leaving only two options...do nothing, or torture.

Welcome to Israel.
Hey, Israel's airport security is arguably the most secure and most envied throughout the world . . .

Point of order:

In Florida, any officer involved in a fatal shooting works a desk until the case has been reviewed and the officer found to have acted within good prudence and within the law.

Depending on the circumstances involved, this investigation can take anywhere from a few days to 6 months.
and to become a 'desk jockey' is harsh punishment for a cop. ;)

and other areas can include suspension with pay. the point is tho. the officer(s) and the Incident is reviewed and investigated.

Cosnequences? In the 24 universe? HA!
take that up with the writers. ;)

Can you say "accessory"?
For example, a Saudi terrorist caught in Afgahnistan who has knowledge of his organization that could help bring them down and prevent further attacks on certain military and civilian institutions in Afgahnistan, the American military sends him back to Saudi Arabia, and then Saudi Arabia reports to America about what the detained terrorist told the Saudi authorities. That is what I'd do.

Obviously said torture would only be used if said information couldn't be gotten through other means, thus leaving only two options...do nothing, or torture.
Yes, yes, the false dilemma and the ticking time bomb scenario, I know.

Hey, Israel's airport security is arguably the most secure and most envied throughout the world . . .
Safe and secure country that doesn't have to worry about any terrorists. And nobody dislikes them for the methods they've used in the past.

For example, a Saudi terrorist caught in Afgahnistan who has knowledge of his organization that could help bring them down and prevent further attacks on certain military and civilian institutions in Afgahnistan, the American military sends him back to Saudi Arabia, and then Saudi Arabia reports to America about what the detained terrorist told the Saudi authorities. That is what I'd do.

Why so complicated? Afraid of getting the blood directly on your hands?

and to become a 'desk jockey' is harsh punishment for a cop. ;)

and other areas can include suspension with pay. the point is tho. the officer(s) and the Incident is reviewed and investigated.

Apparently, we don't have enough cops or money to just be giving them time off all willy-nilly, so they get confined to a desk.

I think they do have an option to take two weeks off with pay now, though. Something about if they need to deal with psychological trauma or something.

Yes, yes, the false dilemma and the ticking time bomb scenario, I know.It is a perfectly plausable hypothetical.


Safe and secure country that doesn't have to worry about any terrorists. And nobody dislikes them for the methods they've used in the past.
I don't form my policies on the unrealistic notion of what would please the people who want to see my total destruction, I form my policies on the realist notion of what would defend me from them and prevent them from acomplishing their goal.

Why so complicated?
Well, going the extra mile is well worth keeping legality intact. Wouldn't want to break the law now would I? ;)

It is a perfectly plausable hypothetical.
Not really, no.


I don't form my policies on the unrealistic notion of what would please the people who want to see my total destruction, I form my policies on the realist notion of what would defend me from them and prevent them from acomplishing their goal.
You also apparently don't form your policies based on any particularly humanistic values, nor on any considerations of long term effects. It could seem like you really are of the same mindset as your opponents, even. Well, almost, you'll only destroy lives, not kill people. Puts you above the people who doesn't take those considerations, I guess.

Gazed into the abyss for too long, perhaps? Or at 24, which would almost be the same thing...

Well, going the extra mile is well worth keeping legality intact. Wouldn't want to break the law now would I? ;)

But you do. See the word "accessory" again.

For example, a Saudi terrorist caught in Afgahnistan who has knowledge of his organization that could help bring them down and prevent further attacks on certain military and civilian institutions in Afgahnistan, the American military sends him back to Saudi Arabia, and then Saudi Arabia reports to America about what the detained terrorist told the Saudi authorities. That is what I'd do.

Well, going the extra mile is well worth keeping legality intact. Wouldn't want to break the law now would I? ;)
And you recognise this as morally bankrupt, yes?



Not exactly. Whenever talk about shortening the sentences or repelling the "three strikes" laws comes up, the main argument pushed is always "Do you want to release thousands of criminals into the society?".

Then address the three strikes law. People serving life for three counts of Petty Theft. This is not reasonable punishment by any standard, and especially not reasonable compared to other penalties. This is imprisonment of a person because it is suspected that that person will commit crimes in the future.
But this doesn't follow on to torture; there's no point in torturing someone to find out about as-yet uncommitted, unplanned crimes.

Sure. It's punishment when done by the gov't, and revenge when done by anyone else.
Or what other difference is there?
Revenge is purely retributive, but punishment isn't.

When a parent punishes their child for stealing a biscuit, say, they aren't getting revenge on the child.


On the most superficial emotional level, perhaps. But this behavior has, like any other, its evolutionary roots. And these are very clear - revenge increases your chances of survival by deterring others from crossing your path again.
I wouldn't say the evolutionary reasons, if any, for revenge are 'very clear' at all... and even if you are correct, you're still confusing the cause of a mental state for its content.

There's a difference between getting revenge on someone and making an example of them. As I said, warning others off is only a tangential motivation.

But the thing is, an average interrogator won't be within a mile's radius. It will be one of the best CIA interrogators on this coast at least.
Not in every instance of torture; that's a ridiculous assumption.

Basically, I want the law to say 'no, we don't torture', but I want there to be individuals in our government that, when faced with a seemingly impossible decision, would break the law in order to do the right thing . . . and would then have to pay the consequences after based on the court's ruling.


That doesn't work for several reasons. First of, the sort of individuals who do that would be like V10. They'd carry out torture, kill the person, and dispose of the body so they won't get caught. People who knowingly break the law rarely ever turn themselves in on their own volition. Second, once again, abuse of law. How often do you read of police officers abusing their station by beating up suspects for no good reason? How often do you read about them getting away with it? Too often. Now you want to extend that sort of mentality even further.

You pay far more than any benefit you could ever get by extending that mentality.


What is Uruk-Hai? I don't speak whatever language that is.

Popularly known as orcs. Of course, given his attitudes, New Mitanni would be more honest in calling anyone who doesn't agree with him untermensch.

Revenge is purely retributive, but punishment isn't.
When a parent punishes their child for stealing a biscuit, say, they aren't getting revenge on the child.
Fair point. That is corrective punishment.
The punishment component of lifetime sentences and DP, however, is rather pure revenge.


There's a difference between getting revenge on someone and making an example of them. As I said, warning others off is only a tangential motivation.
On the conscious level, yes. But that's the same as saying that in love, sex is only a tangential motivation.
The impulse to revenge is just how the more indirect forms of the self-preservation instinct manifest themselves.


Not in every instance of torture; that's a ridiculous assumption.
If torture is limited to extreme ongoing terrorist act situations, and special CIA personnel (they have the experience), it would be one of the best.
Torture may just be needed to make the subject start talking if they refuse to.

Can you say "accessory"?


Cosnequences? In the 24 universe? HA!

To be fair, that has less to do with Jack and more to do with the government of 24 being the most fucking useless thing ever.

Season 4's terrorists use a centralized device that controls all of the country's nuclear reactors. How does the government learn from this? By centralizing everything else behind a single firewall. Guess what happens?

Also, at least two presidents have been removed from office due to injuries from terrorist attacks. At least one case of a VP trying to usurp power so he can blow shit up in the Middle East, one President who was part of a huge conspiracy to nerve gas his own country, two ex-presidents assassinated, at least one case of the White house being invaded by a group of terrorists lead by an African Warlord, etc.

I am willing to accept that torture works in 24's universe. There is, after all, nothing to suggest it's at all similar to our own.

To be fair, that has less to do with Jack and more to do with the government of 24 being the most fucking useless thing ever.

Season 4's terrorists use a centralized device that controls all of the country's nuclear reactors. How does the government learn from this? By centralizing everything else behind a single firewall. Guess what happens?

Also, at least two presidents have been removed from office due to injuries from terrorist attacks. At least one case of a VP trying to usurp power so he can blow shit up in the Middle East, one President who was part of a huge conspiracy to nerve gas his own country, two ex-presidents assassinated, at least one case of the White house being invaded by a group of terrorists lead by an African Warlord, etc.

I am willing to accept that torture works in 24's universe. There is, after all, nothing to suggest it's at all similar to our own.

24 is basically a right-wing wankfest - it's true, the writer ended up creating the farce known as The Half Hour News Hour.

Incompetence as justification for distrusting the federal government.

The premise that torture provides accurate information and is thus acceptable in certain circumstances.

So on and so forth.

Also, at least two presidents have been removed from office due to injuries from terrorist attacks. At least one case of a VP trying to usurp power so he can blow shit up in the Middle East, one President who was part of a huge conspiracy to nerve gas his own country, two ex-presidents assassinated, at least one case of the White house being invaded by a group of terrorists lead by an African Warlord, etc.
I'm so glad I never watched anything more than the first series...

I'm so glad I never watched anything more than the first series...

My stepdad is hooked to 24. He's so much a fan that his mobile phone ring tone is the CTU sound.

24 is basically a right-wing wankfest - it's true, the writer ended up creating the farce known as The Half Hour News Hour.

Incompetence as justification for distrusting the federal government.

The premise that torture provides accurate information and is thus acceptable in certain circumstances.

So on and so forth.

And yet the last episode implied (albeit clumsily) that Jack does really believe that the Constitution should take precedence but can't bring himself to act that way, 24 did have the first black president (A democract, nonetheless) who was also one of the more noble characters and one of the few to clash with Jack and not look stupid. This last season featured a Lawful Good FBI agent (heavy anti-torture) that pretty much won everyone over by the time Soul Patch Almeida killed him, and was also pretty adamant with it's TakeThat's against the Blackwater stand-in. Not to mention the excessive "do something about global warming" commercials.

I'm not going to deny that the show has a definite slant to the right. But I don't really think it's a total wankfest either.