Another verdict on waterboading: it's torture.
- Thread starter brennan
- Start date
holy king
Deity
body? psyche...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Are you suggesting that anything that doesn't leave a physical mark can't be torture?
I'm not much of a fan of Christopher Hitchens, but 
for actually practicing what he preaches... ummm... sorta, well you get the point. 
for actually practicing what he preaches... ummm... sorta, well you get the point. 
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Explain.
Uhm, Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old
Anyway, waterboarding is used regularly and it is a method resembling torture. That's why I am saying that torture should be legalized and its use should be only ordered by the court in a extreme situations.
Perfectly wrong argument. What resources would be wasted? Police and the secret services would continue as usual, only this time they'd have the information extracted from the suspect. The credibility of this information would be evaluated, of course.
Uhm, that's totally not what I mean.
Torture would be used only in extreme situation, as the ticking bomb dilemma, and only when lives of other people were directly threatened. In fact, it would be used mostly against the terrorist suspects, who are tortured anyway - in other countries where they're flown by secret CIA flights
This would make tho whole process quicker, less inhumane and controllable, plus it would save lives.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
When did you get interested in BDSM? And have you been waterboarded yet?
How ?
holy king
Deity
Uhm, that's totally not what I mean.
Torture would be used only in extreme situation, as the ticking bomb dilemma, and only when lives of other people were directly threatened. In fact, it would be used mostly against the terrorist suspects, who are tortured anyway - in other countries where they're flown by secret CIA flights
This would make tho whole process quicker, less inhumane and controllable, plus it would save lives.
"dear judge, my neighbour has planted a bomb in the town's school. it will set off in 20 minutes."
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
The correct consideration, ticking bomb or no ticking bomb, is this:
A = [positive] expected utility of information gained by torture, after accounting for such factors as torturees saying what they think the torturers want to hear (if you read the article, one person managed to "confess" to being a hermaphrodite) and the probability that you'll be able to act on it in time
B = [negative] expected utility of being a country that uses torture, taking into account such factors as the additional number of jihadis gained from the damage to your reputation
Is (A + B) more or less than zero?
Usually the ticking time bomb scenario is brought up in a manner that ignores B entirely (thus making it one-sided) and puts a locally outlying high value on A: the jihadi will confess, the bomb does exist, the police will find and disarm the bomb. These are not generally the case.
I meant the Universe. Woops. Point still holds.Uhm, Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old
Winner
Diverse in Unity
A - evaluation of the information is necessary, but the information extracted from the suspect by torture would hardly cause more harm than good
B - reputation hit would be minimal and it would certainly not increase the number of terrorists targeting the country. Jihadists don't target the West because of its domestic policies related to combating terrorism, they attack it because of its very nature.
I think you miss the point. Terrorists are being tortured. Under certain circumstances, they'd be tortured even if torture was banned by 100 different conventions. So far, the only country which admits it would torture terrorists is Israel.
What I propose would not change what's already happening, it would just subject it more control. As usual, simple ban does not solve the problem.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Judge: Yeah, sure, and I am the Pope. You are hereby sentenced to 30 days in prison and 5,000 € fine for spreading lies that could cause panic.
Agai, the use of torture would be restricted to very serious situations. It would not be a thing that would happen on daily basis.
holy king
Deity
sounds reasoable, but legalising torture would lead to denunciations. (way more than the few that are allready happening)
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
During WW2 the japanese would often dish out punishment by stripping US POWS and pour cold water over them during the night. Afterwards they were made to stand up freezing and shivering. This also resulted in deaths of allied pows.
Torture should only used be last resort and under special circumstances. And it should be done publicly and transpartently.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
No, I am officially a non-practising Catholic.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Why? The US torture terrorists all the time, most of the time without any serious reason. Most countries just ignore it when their secret services do it when it's necessary.
holy king
Deity
so how would you design the law? torture is only ok if the secret service says the source is credible? hooray for secret police arbitrariness.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Like any intelligence data are evaluted. Does it fall in line with our other information? Is it plausible? etc.
nonconformist
Miserable
Cato the Elder
King
Torture should, in any and all cases, be outlawed. It is a method not only cruel and inhumane, but surpassed by modern technology. (by that I don't mean that technology solves all criminal problems, but on a case-by-case basis it has more chance of succeeding)
The term "terrorist" has, in my eyes, also become more of a catchphrase for "suspicious person who deserves to be stripped of human rights" instead of its original definition.
The term "terrorist" has, in my eyes, also become more of a catchphrase for "suspicious person who deserves to be stripped of human rights" instead of its original definition.
Similar threads
