There has to be some TORTURE situations that are JUSTIFIED

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?

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.

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?...

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.

It's more than a little nerdy, I know, but here's a great clip from TNG that rather eloquently sums up why torture is always wrong:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by sremmos

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.

My primary sources for what...for posing a scenario to facilitate discussion? Does asking a question mean I have an agenda that must be supported by sources?

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.

I claimed that "torture is good for society"? Really? Like I said, this topic has gotten under your skin. You obviously feel quite passionate about it...but your anger has begun to cloud your ability to read.

I am not interested...at all...in getting into some kind of flame war with you. You have clearly stated your position, and I respect your opinion. I am still kind of on the fence about whether there is ever a situation where torture is justified...but that is just my sort of non-opinion.

We'll just leave it at that.

Also, in a last minute situation, say you have ten minutes, if the detainee has as much knowledge as you think he does, he is likely aware of the short time frame, and having this knowledge is kind of like being in a boxing or UFC match and "holding out" until the bell rings even though you're getting beat up and losing the fight.

If you aren't going to torture the detainee after the bomb goes off as "punishment" then he's clean and clear and will NEVER talk to you about #, you just tortured him after all. You eliminated a source and lost the game, and violated your humanity all in an effort to "save millions."

Additionally, your shtf scenario is EXTREMELY unlikely since the biggest ACTUAL terrorist attack (not theorycraft) that ever happened was the twin towers. Torture would not have prevented the largest attack in the history of the united states, but torture will work in your hypothetical with MILLIONS of lives about to be lost?

The guys that did 9/11 were willing to suicide into the side of a building, you really think like minded people are going to foil their own SUPER 1000x more death inducing terrorist attack than 9/11 when they know "if I just hold out for these last ten minutes of torture, I win"???

Terrorism is also a form of torture.
Terrorism is never done without a reason.
Terrorism is created for a reason.

911 didn't happen without a reason.
911 happened for a reason.

Afghanistan was invaded for a reason.
Iraq was invaded for a reason.

Is terrorism the real true reason why we do the things we do?

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.

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.

There is never a point at which torture techniques that are known to illicit false confessions are justified... UNLESS you are specifically looking to build a pile of false intel... If you are planning an invasion of Iraq, this might be useful I suppose...

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'.

For all those who believe torture should never be used:

What would you do if a convicted rapist was captured and he wouldn't reveal the where abouts of your kidnapped child?

Seriously, what would your approach be if you had him in a cell and no one was looking?

I don't care if you have to rip teeth out, stab with red hot knives, or extract fingernails, the information gained is worth it if it prevents one British death, as far as I'm concerned, these muzzies don't deserve to be treated with any dignity, not if they intend to kill innocents on trains or spray machineguns into schools

Originally posted by Death_Kron
For all those who believe torture should never be used:

What would you do if a convicted rapist was captured and he wouldn't reveal the where abouts of your kidnapped child?

Seriously, what would your approach be if you had him in a cell and no one was looking?

I would invest in a device that can read human thought, or read human information storage, rather than torturing someone.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars on wars, America could have invested a portion of that money to accelerate the research in regards to human brain. 10 years of destructions and death could have been converted to 10 years of research/discovery and advancement.

If you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty you must have missed your American civics classes.
I'm pretty sure it says in the Constitution that we are not to engage in "cruel or unusual punishment".
You want to change it then move to another country or start your own.