It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Torture a Legitimate Interrogation Tool?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
If this question has been asked before I apologise but on the off chance that it hasn’t here goes.

Is torture a legitimate interrogation method to use in the case of terrorists if the results achieved mean that we close down terrorist cells?

If yes:

- Are there limits?
- How do you relate this to the rights of the individual or,
- Does the individual negate their rights based on their behaviour

If no:

- Does that mean that individual rights regardless of the impact of the individuals activities out weights the rights of the worlds population

I should have added that this question became a topic of debate in academic circles this week when the statement was made that it is legitimate.

[edit on 25/5/2005 by Lady of the Lake]




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Warning: Anyone answering yes to the question will go on a special trip to Egypt for a weekend.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Generally speaking, torture doesn't work as well as pyschological 'treatments' do.

Before literally "beating" the information out of a suspect/prisoner, the interrogators generally just deprive them the basics: they would receive little food/water, or, in most cases, a repetitive sound is played over and over until the prisoner finally snaps. This is done commonly.

This could be 'torture', if you would like to think about it that way, but pyschological damage is much more effective than a beating (which makes them all the more stubborn) when it comes to extracting information.

-wD



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Dangerous question. How bad and in what country is the information sought from a captured individual with so many components to lose?

Seems to me if a single Soldier could be saved through the use of undescribable torture then he would be handed over to allies specializing in such techniques.

Dallas



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
torture is actualy amounst the worst tools one can use to gain unknown or unsubstaniated info. wheather it is legitimate to use or not is actualy a rather pointless question, as it has less then zero valu in gaining RELIABLE info. in fact the only thing that torture is realy good for is the socialpathes that use it getting their rocks off by it.

see the fun thing about torture be it phisical, mental, or even phycological, is the fact that you inherantly can not trust any of it. this was made rather obvious dureing the inquisitions that went on dureing the "dark ages". exactly how many of the "coffessed" under torture witches were killed? how many of them do you suppose were actualy witches? if torture realy works then it would be fair to say that they all wre involved in witchcraft then. in that case why is that time period so reviled as being wrong?

you see the truth is that when someone is subjected to such things they will tend to say just about ANYTHING that they feel that those in charge want to hear in order to make it stop and go away. there i no need for truth as even death can be considdered a better alternitive to the mental, phycological and phisical torture that they recieve. as such NOTHING that is said can be trusted at all. i am quite familier with interrogations and as such can say with CERTANTY that even without pain involved there is an overrideing desire to admit to an untrouth just to make it stop. i know people who have admitted to doing things under that type of duress. things that were not true, but when prommised things like the torture will stop, and even that things may go a bit easyer, it is very easy to agree to what they want. even if you have to lie about it. THE ONLY REAL CONCERN IS FOR IT TO STOP. truth actualy dosn't matter at that point only the torturing stopping matters.

so that being the case torture is amounst the most inefficant things that can be done to get at the truth. hell i would give up almost anybody that they would want if it wee to make my suffering stop. even rewards are worthless. heck i'll sell out my upstairs neibour for a reward after all what realy ends up mattering to me? someone i don't like or myself? how many people were killed in the old sssr by someone DENOUNCEING them? either for potential gain or to relieve the pressure off of themselves? i guess all those that were purged were also all guilty.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Torture is a losers last resort. That is about as simple as the answer gets. Anyone that uses it is a criminal. That includes the U.S. There are no exceptions.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Much depends on your definition of torture were the prisoners in Iraq tortured? Sure the prisoners were made to feel uncomfortable in staged photos but can forcing someone into a pile of naked bodies be compared to killing someone and brining them back to life? (Im think of experiments done on jews in nazi concentration camps.)

There are many shades of grey in this world............



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
You are the FBI. You catch a terrorist building bombs in a temporary apartment and have credible info that there were more terrorists in similar locations around the city also preparing to carry out acts of massive violence at any time. Would you think it's ok to go ahead and torture this one person to save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of others? Even if the torture lead to the person's death (given that you received some critical information in the process)? 1 life to save 1 thousand. Is it then ok?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just posing the question in a more tangible manner.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Of course it is not ok. How many times has "credible" evidence turned out to be false? And maybe if you torturned a drug user you could find out who his suppliers were to help keep drugs away from children. There simply is NO excuse for torture. As I stated before... it is a losers last resort.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Torture is a losers last resort. That is about as simple as the answer gets. Anyone that uses it is a criminal. That includes the U.S. There are no exceptions.


What examples of physical abuse can you give us that the US has done? Im not talking about putting trashbags on your head and making you walk naked either, Im talking physical torture, beating, etc.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   


Would you think it's ok to go ahead and torture this one person to save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of others?

Yes it is. Good question...reminds of the TV show 24 season two had a few scenes like this. not as many in Season 3.

Ofcourse the problem lies in who people choose to torture.....I think it is wrong to torture just some random joe being held at G-moe.

If I knew for a fact that someone knew and had critical info that could help me stop a large scale attack...then yes I would say torture them and save the lives.

Say for example Randy and Billy Bob are two KKK members that have planted bombs at a local black-pride rally in downtown DC. You know this as fact, they admit to it but will not tell where the bombs are or when they will go off. You cannot evacuate because there is a 3rd player close by that will detonate them if you start. However your only chance is to go in descretely and disarm the bombs...but first you have to get the locations of the bombs and the 3rd person.

Remember the clock is ticking, you dont have time to mental torture. People will die, your friends, coworkers, maybe even family.

Yes or No for Physical torture?

[edit on 26/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
If you were alone in a room with a handcuffed member of a gang who had abducted your child, what methods would you use to find out where your child is?





[edit on 26-5-2005 by cargo]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
One must remember that torture is not only physcial but physcological as well, as some one has said on here before.
Image being forced to watch horrible and disgusting videos (as in executions etc) over and over, being forced to listen to it in the backround.

That would make people crack, horrible and terrible, but effective.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
If you were alone in a room with a handcuffed member of a gang who had abducted your child, what methods would you use to find out where your child is?

Hell yeah


[edit on 26/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Mental torture.


That would make people crack, horrible and terrible, but effective.

yes it would but with a short time restraint...that's could be hard to achieve.


[edit on 26/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
yes it would but with a short time restraint...that's could be hard to achieve.
[edit on 26/5/2005 by SportyMB]

Possibley, it all depends on the pesron and the matrials at hand.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
``
I'm with Indy on 'torture'(s)



Originally posted by Indy
Of course it is not ok.
There simply is NO excuse for torture.
As I stated before... it is a losers last resort.


knowing full well that a soldiers' scope of knowledge is deliberately
limited to his/their part-of-the-mission only. Intelligence is compartmentalized.
As far as terrorists, i think they might have a broader knowledge
of the mission(s) as their orgs are less structured in a vertical heirarchy....
BUT, they also seem to be more fundamental, radical, extremist and driven by zealotry...
therefore even less inclined to reveal useful 'secrets'
.........................

Anyhow, who needs interrogations or torture.
when there is information extracting techniques like RemoteViewing Specialists.

What is more compelling is the question of it would be proper/ethical
to release 'suspects'/solders/enemy combatants...with an array of
listening devices, implants or tracking chips, so that some black-ops or super intel command
could monitor the movements of those who are 'adversaries'?

Besides, if they were discovered, then the war-clash-kill mindset would
rationalise it was OK for the enemy to kill the 'bugged' & 'tracker inplanted'
person....as it would only rid (us) of another enemy or terrorist,
at NO Additional Cost to taxpayers.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
erm, I wasn't really after answers explaining the actual methods you would use in torture....I guess that's my fault, I DID word it that way. It was supposed provoke a "hmmm" from you, not a Bret Easton Ellis book paragraph.

eh....nevermind.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
cargo, I knew what you meant....I just didnt wanna give a straight "yes" answer because someone would probably say it's the cops job or there has to be an investigation or he could be inncoent or something along the lines....last resort, which is cool.

Just answering ahead.....



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
IN my opinion torture is nothing more than a form of terrorism, instilling fear for your own gains.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join