A question for those who oppose torture.

Sure I'll use torture.

If 10.000 people died because you were to "morally superiour" to try everything to get the information about the bomb, I don't think feeling "morally superiour" is going to do your conciounce much good.

Why are people so strict about torture. It's just a body, it's just pain and it's just temporary.
 
AceChilla said:
Why are people so strict about torture. It's just a body, it's just pain and it's just temporary.

Many forms of torture are not temporary, but result in permanent mutiliations and disfigurements. Torture is often done not just for the sake of gaining information, but to set an example to other citizens of what horrible things might happen if they do not submit to tyrannical authority. And in these cases, 'setting the example' means leaving physical reminders of the horror awaiting dissent to such brutal leadership.

As to why it is so abhorrent to western and/or democratic societies..

That has much to do with convincing ourselves that we are 'civilized' and nothing like the 'barbarians' who regularly abuse their own citizens. Tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein have committed acts so brutal that they have been labelled atrocities against humanity. When the full details of these abuses are revealed, we swear that we must be vigilant to 'never let it happen here'. So we pass laws and protections to keep our Governments from engaging in similar acts against us. Unfortunately, it is often these very protections that enable terrorists and other criminals to take advantage of the system and run amok in society.

There does not appear to be any easy solution to the problem when Security and Freedom come into conflict. If it is indeed a 'zero sum game', then a lot of folks tend to fall heavily on one side (legal rights of the accused) or the other (public justice) because it is just too difficult to work out an easy balance. But that debate Must remain open, because even if a balance can never be achieved..

BOTH extremes are detrimental to society.



-Elgalad
 
Elgalad said:
Many forms of torture are not temporary, but result in permanent mutiliations and disfigurements. Torture is often done not just for the sake of gaining information, but to set an example to other citizens of what horrible things might happen if they do not submit to tyrannical authority. And in these cases, 'setting the example' means leaving physical reminders of the horror awaiting dissent to such brutal leadership.

There are methods of torture that just produce temporary pain, and doesn't leave any lasting physical discomfort. Of course mentally it can leave a trauma that's why it's shouldn't be used to often or without a good reason.

In this case it isn't about setting an example to other citizens. Just about gaining information in an efficient way.

As to why it is so abhorrent to western and/or democratic societies..

That has much to do with convincing ourselves that we are 'civilized' and nothing like the 'barbarians' who regularly abuse their own citizens. Tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein have committed acts so brutal that they have been labelled atrocities against humanity. When the full details of these abuses are revealed, we swear that we must be vigilant to 'never let it happen here'. So we pass laws and protections to keep our Governments from engaging in similar acts against us. Unfortunately, it is often these very protections that enable terrorists and other criminals to take advantage of the system and run amok in society.

Dogma's shouldn't get in the way of common sense.

There does not appear to be any easy solution to the problem when Security and Freedom come into conflict. If it is indeed a 'zero sum game', then a lot of folks tend to fall heavily on one side (legal rights of the accused) or the other (public justice) because it is just too difficult to work out an easy balance. But that debate Must remain open, because even if a balance can never be achieved..

BOTH extremes are detrimental to society.



-Elgalad

I agree, that's why we should leave the possibility of torture open for use in "extreme" circumstantes such as the one proposed in this thread.
 
As long as the terrorist is not a US citizen and therefore not protected by the Constitution, then I would approve of any and all methods of torture.
 
If I actually believed this fellow, who for all I know could be lying so that I can martyr him, and I had run out of interrogation techniques, I might use psychological torture if this were an emergency situation but I would never use physical torture.
 
Blazer6 said:
As long as the terrorist is not a US citizen and therefore not protected by the Constitution, then I would approve of any and all methods of torture.
God Bless Amerika!
 
silver 2039 said:
Suppose you have captured a terroist. He has hidden a bomb somewhere in a city that could kill anywhere from 5-1000 people depending on how powerful it is and where it is located and when it goes off.
You don't know any of those. You have tried all other types of interogation methods and none of them have worked.
Would you use torture to extract the information that could save 5 lives or perhaps up to a 1000 lives?
I would endorse the use of mental trickery, but not physical torture.
 
There's always Chinese Water Torture. Painless and scarless. :mischief:

Or this one:
Step 1. Hogtie prisoner.
Step 2. Cover him head to toe in a thick blanket.
Step 3. Get 10 people and feed them beans and eggs.
Step 4. Let these people fart into the blanket... :evil:
 
AceChilla said:
Why are people so strict about torture. It's just a body, it's just pain and it's just temporary.

I don't know, can you imagine being tortured? I can, and I really don't want it to happen to me! :eek: It's more than just pain, IMO. I would certainly choose death over serious torture, any time.
 
silver 2039 said:
Suppose you have captured a terroist. He has hidden a bomb somewhere in a city that could kill anywhere from 5-1000 people depending on how powerful it is and where it is located and when it goes off.
You don't know any of those. You have tried all other types of interogation methods and none of them have worked.
Would you use torture to extract the information that could save 5 lives or perhaps up to a 1000 lives?
I would never use torture. And if I had exhausted all other interrogating methods then torture most likely wouldn't help anyway, as the terrorist is too fanatical.
Another objection I have is, how can anyone be sure he is a terrorist and not just a random innocent person?
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
While I believe in strong interrogation techniques, going over the line to torture is absolutely wrong. Besides, its ineffective.

ditto.

f-ing filler
 
Dr. Yoshi said:
If I actually believed this fellow, who for all I know could be lying so that I can martyr him, and I had run out of interrogation techniques, I might use psychological torture if this were an emergency situation but I would never use physical torture.

What in your eyes make psychological torture more acceptable than physical torture. I for one would much prefer to be physically tortured than to be psychologically tortured, as IMO the brain is far more delicate than the body.

Theoden said:
I would never use torture. And if I had exhausted all other interrogating methods then torture most likely wouldn't help anyway, as the terrorist is too fanatical.
Another objection I have is, how can anyone be sure he is a terrorist and not just a random innocent person?

Maybe we shouldn't interogate people at all either, because thats bound to do nothing. You excuse is a cop out. Torture can be effective, especially if the victim is not expecting it (and hense has not been trained to overcome it).

A'AbarachAmadan said:
While I believe in strong interrogation techniques, going over the line to torture is absolutely wrong. Besides, its ineffective.

And where do strong interogation techniques end and torture begin? And how exactly do you know its ineffective? Even if this is true, is this still an excuse for not using it.
 
If you're talking about an islamic terrorist, you could always have someone do them up the arse to put the fear of allah into them, then they ought to spill the beans. Does that count as torture? :lol:
 
If you're talking about an Christian terrorist, you could always have someone do them up the arse to put the fear of Jesus into them, then they ought to spill the beans. Does that count as torture? :lol:
 
Yeah, let's make them fear Christ! Christ is coming, and you were a bad boy. the 45 year old guy answers: "oh, mommy!"
 
alco75 said:
If you're talking about an islamic terrorist, you could always have someone do them up the arse to put the fear of allah into them, then they ought to spill the beans. Does that count as torture? :lol:
Way to go, Adolf.
 
WillJ said:
If you're talking about an Christian terrorist, you could always have someone do them up the arse to put the fear of Jesus into them, then they ought to spill the beans. Does that count as torture? :lol:
But who would do the torturing? We don't allow those types in our army!
 
I will never use a torture, even to a terrarist. We could put him in jail, though (if he really a terrarist). Then we could give him a friend to talk to... We should always think of justice, when we say torture.
 
Top Bottom