There has to be some TORTURE situations that are JUSTIFIED, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:11 AM by lifeform11
reply to post by mobiusmale

i would investigate the mans movements, try to obtain as much information about him that i can to pinpoint where he has traveled, where he lives, raid his home, look for clues that may give an indication on which city is most likely.

meanwhile i would ask him why he is doing it, what it is he wants, experts accessing him for personality, body language, etc etc, i would want to try and get on his good side, to try and get information out of him, at this point i would not want to risk pi""ing him off more and becoming more determined in making it happen.

its all ifs, there is no right thing to do in this situation. is he willing to die for his cause? how much time is available? does he talk when asked questions? does he talk after being tortured? does he give the correct code if he talks?


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:13 AM by Wyn Hawks
Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Thanks for your thoughtful response. But, it seems to me that you haven't addressed yourself to the moral dilema being raised in the "what if"?


...yeah, i did - but - i'll try to make it plainer...

...if i was miz prez (a real president, not a puppet), there would be NO issue of should we torture or not... a computer program would already be in place for the sole purpose of defusing this exact scenario...

...hows that?... clear enough?...



reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:20 AM by space cadet
reply to post by The Vagabond


You are absolutely right, and I would like to clarify that I do not 'support' torture, I accept though that it is a strategy used. It may be used and work, or horribly misused, but it is used.

I think that since torture is already used in the military it should be regulated, I am not saying to use torture, I am saying that it is used, therefore should be regulated if so.


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:26 AM by sremmos
Originally posted by mobiusmale
Originally posted by sremmos

Since torture is likely to give you FALSE INTELLIGENCE, that's surely not on the #ing table in a situation like this. You'd be putting everyone at risk for your #ty belief that "torture" gets true answers. Have you ever tortured anybody? How effective was it? If you don't know then stfu pretending that it's somehow the "last available method."

A method likely to produce false intelligence where false intelligence will kill lots of people seems absolutely idiotic to use as a last resort.


Well, sorry to be getting under your skin with this little riddle (stfu? hmmm).

I do not think I would agree with the idea that "torture is likely to give you false intelligence". You sometimes do get false information, that's true. But if someone knows the torture will resume, or get worse, if it is proven that they have lied, you will often get very reliable information.

Have I ever tortured anybody? If we exclude my kid sister when I was a wee lad...then no. Have you?

I do have a buddy, though, who once ran with a biker gang. He told me that techniques like chopping off part of a finger...or getting a guy to dig a grave in the bush, making him kneel down and then firing a pistol off beside his head...were pretty much sure fire ways to get information or future cooperation from the target.

Anyway, I guess we have your answer. In your opinion there is never a situation that justifies torture. Fair enough.


I don't care about your biker gang anecdote, that's all that is, and on top of that here's some primary sources (by the way I'm still waiting for yours) that talk about the reliability of torture in intelligence gathering.

www.world-science.net...
www.upi.com...


FBI uses rapport building techniques, gets info. CIA comes in and starts torture, gets no info:
www.democracynow.org...


Then there's this, that shows that countries which torture experience MORE terrorism than countries that do not torture:

backchannels.blogspot.com...
www.politicalscience.uncc.edu...
Torture has a negative and statistically significant relationship to terrorism in all three models. In other words, countries that engage in more torture (and thus have a lower score on the torture variable) consistenly experience more, not less, of both domestic and transnational terrorism. This mirrors the more general finding reported in the paper that respect for human rights is associated with less terror as well.


You claiming that torture is good for society does not make it so, you claiming that is a viable "last minute" interrogation technique also does not hold up to reality. Sometimes you just CAN'T save the world.


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:30 AM by sremmos
Originally posted by mobiusmale
Originally posted by sremmos
Additionally mobeus, it's absurd to justify destroying our own humanity with a worst case scenario that might happen once every 1000 years (hasn't happened yet).

Sorry, I'm not willing to support government torture just because you are touting fear.


I was only presenting a scenario to fetch out people's thoughts on the OP's question. I have not actually stated my own opinion to this point. You are inferring that I support torture just because I posed a question to further the conversation.

But, your instincts may be fairly good. I, personally, think that torture is unnecessary and ill-advised in almost all situations and circumstances...but can imagine that there could be a situation where (if I was the guy making the call) I would allow it.

Having said that, I am not convinced that I would be right if I ever did make such a decision. I certainly hope I am never put into a position like that.


I can recognize that an individual might FEEL like torture is his best and only option as the clock is about to strike twelve, I am merely asserting that this natural feeling that inflicting harm on an individual will get that individual to comply with your demands and help you prevent the terrorist attack that he and his friends plotted, that he's so loyal to that the standard techniques failed completely on, and I can even see an individual taking this step in that moment of desperation, I merely assert that taking the step would be the wrong choice, and ill advisable in the effort to obtain last minute intelligence. The FBI was able to do it by being nice to a critically injured insurgent, the CIA came and was mean to the same guy and they got nothing out of him.

If you torture me, it will just make me hate you. Sure, I might get mentally weak from it, but instead of telling you the truth torture would (at best) get lies and misinformation. If anything if I would intentionally hold my own against the torture just to make my interrogators look bad for torturing me AND failing to protect people.


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:47 AM by sremmos
reply to post by mobiusmale


You are backtracking heavily, earlier you argued that your personal friend told you about how he and others tortured people and it was effective in the "biker gang."

It's great that you were playing devil's advocate but it's sad that you ignore my sources which show that torture generates non-actionable intelligence and how nations that torture experience more (domestic and transnational) terrorism rather than less as a net effect of their disregard for basic human rights.

I am in fact heavily against the flawed idea, supported (so far) 100% by pure speculation and "worst case scenarios" of "what would you do?", and am in fact annoyed that while I asked multiple times for primary sources documenting how statistically and overall torture is a net positive in gathering actionable intelligence, instead of providing it you ignored my own sources, claimed you weren't even really arguing for torture even though your rhetorical scenario was specifically designed for that and even though you were actively refuting anyone who offered up that torture would NOT be the right solution in that scenario (until me).

Sure, it is a little annoying that you put yourself in a position where you don't have to answer for your own rhetoric and assertions and when you pretend that speculation and your friends anecdotal story justify "last minute" torture. Of course this bothers me, but I don't care that much, I just hope people will read this and see that torture is ineffective and in fact actually unwise in a "get the intelligence now or millions die" situation. That would probably be the absolute worst time to use torture because it's so unreliable, it'd be like playing dice with millions of lives.


reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 02:55 AM by sremmos
Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by Wyn Hawks


How would you proceed in the scenario I presented?

Which shows more integrity, or humanity? Is there more integrity in doing whatever it takes...or at least making some kind of an attempt (whether or not it ends up a successful attempt) to save a few million people?

Or would a person's integrity and humanity be more intact because he/she applied no pressure on an individual - which or may not help - and then millions died?

What is your answer to this? I am curious.


Mobeus, this is where I detected your bias (and thus you can't pretend to be a neutral "scenario proposer").

"Or would a person's integrity and humanity be more intact because he/she applied no pressure on an individual- which may or may not help - and millions dead?"

You imply that torture is a 'better' method, and that by not torturing the alternative is "appl[ying] no pressure on an individual" even though this is patently false. You pretend that it's either "torture" or "no pressure" and that this is somehow realistic, and obviously if the interrogators just sit there and "apply no pressure" and in no way try to extract information as millions are about to die, they are immoral. But not torturing is not the same as not applying pressure, not the same as not interrogating.

Both options would involve "applying pressure." The non torturers would still be doing everything they can to get actionable intelligence from the detainee. The torturers would also believe they were doing everything in their power.

You laid it out like only the people torturing are "applying pressure" and this creates a very heavy and unfair slant in you pretend unbiased hypothetical.

also:
"Which shows more integrity, or humanity? Is there more integrity in doing whatever it takes...or at least making some kind of an attempt (whether or not it ends up a successful attempt) to save a few million people?"

and then for non torture

"which or may not help - and then millions died?"

so for torture you said "whether or not" but then implied SUCCESS and for non torture you said "may or may not but ended the sentence with "and then millions died?"

How can you even remotely claim to have been a neutral scenario proposer, it's laughable.
edit on 23-10-2010 by sremmos because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 23-10-2010 @ 06:05 AM by starchild10
Originally posted by MoreFunky85
reply to post by oozyism


Im talking about Bin Laden and legitimate terrorists. I dont agree with the torture of innocents.

Ah well there you have it.
Seems to me a lot of genuine innocents have been tortured, abused and killed.
Plus as said already, information gained this way may not be credible. Me I'd say whatever they wanted me to say to make it stop. I'd say the sky was green with yellow dots...
We have to show we are better than 'the other lot'.
edit on 23-10-2010 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^