When is torture acceptable?

[Bluesplayer]

Without getting too far off-topic with a discussion of what, exactly, constitutes "torture," under what circumstances is it acceptable for a state to employ it in order to gain significant national security-related intelligence?

[SmokingJacket]

1. Never.

Coerced information is unreliable.

[AngryAmish]

21. I have to disagree

Torture is never acceptable because we are civilized people. But as a basic utilitarian matter, torture does work. If you pound on anyone long enough they will confess to being Joan of Arc. However, properly applied torture does work to get information.

In the book "Bravo Two Zero" a British SAS soldier named Andy McNab was captured in Gulf War I. These are among the most highly trained soldiers in the world, like US Special Forces. After the beat the shit out of him long enough (oddly enough in Abu Grahib prison) he gave up all the details of his mission.

A guy I know was a pilot in the USAF. He had to go through survival training which included ways to deal with getting tortured/interrogated. Essentially he was broken without torture but some really uncomfortable things. He said everyone he knew that went through the training broke also. Most people break through sleep deprivation. This was true of Soviet gulag also (see Gulag Archipelago).


It think the "torture does not work" is a platitude without a basis in fact if torture is done correctly. Evil, yes. Non-useful, no.

[kentuck]

24. But the question is:

When would it be acceptable to use? Simply to get information or to stop something that is imminent where many people may die? Are there any situations in the world right now that we know of, where torture would be acceptable? I do not see any.

[AngryAmish]

33. I diasagree with the use of torture

I just think one should not argue against it on utilitarian grounds because it clearly does work.

[SmokingJacket]

43. I said unreliable.

I'm sure sometimes people confess under pressure. But people often confess to get it to stop, or because they're so confused by the torture/coercion they don't even know anymore -- see lots of cases of police interrogation.

Some people might find it justifiable to administer a little sleep deprivation in exchange for information that saves a ship full of orphan babies, for example. I don't -- because yes, torture is wrong, but also because you might be torturing the wrong person, and because you might get faulty information, and because there's NO way permission can be granted to only torture "correctly."

My point is that even if you're a person who can morally justify torture to "save lives" (and I'm not), you can't ensure that it's done effectively and that the information you get is reliable, anyway. There simply is no good justification for torture.

I feel similarly about the death penalty. I think state-sponsored murder is wrong no matter how you slice it, but even if I believed that certain monstrous criminals deserve to die, there is no way to ensure that it's applied fairly and no innocent people are wrongly convicted.

[kentuck]

44. A very sane response...

Thanks.

[Sparkly]

2. Never, according to the laws and conventions the US has signed to

Nor do experts believe it actually produces reliable intelligence.

[whistle]

3. When is wife beating accetable?

[starroute]

4. Never (n/t)

[Vickers]

5. Never. "Intelligence" gleaned from torture is unreliable

Listen, if you are pulling my fingernails out or tasering me in the nuts, I'm gonna yell out anything just to get you off my ass.

[moobu2]

18. That's exacty why

There are several cases in the news right now concerning false confessions after long grueling police interrogations. One case was a father of a 4 year old girl who went missing and the body found a short time later down the street. She had been sexually molested and murdered. She had been taken from the house while the father was there alone with her. The police were determined that the father did it and got him to confess he did after an entire day of interrogations. After the father rested he recanted the confession but it was to late, no one believed him.

DNA later determined the father could not have possibly been the molester and he was freed. Thankfully the killer left his DNA because if he had not, there would have been 2 victims in that family.

I wonder how many other false confessions obtained after psychological torture have landed innocent people in prison. God only knows.

[Moochy]

6. Never except on 24

Never! except if you are a character on Fox's 24.
Then it's all good, since 24's president is a wimp. (unlike *)

:eyes:

[kentuck]

7. If it was known that an attack was imminent and we could stop it...

with the right information, in order to save many lives, it could be logically argued that some degree of "torture" would be acceptable? However, the devil is in the details. What type of torture?

[atreides1]

16. And what do you do

When the information was a lie because the captive wanted to avoid being tortured?

If anyone condones torture for any reason then it will be used when it's not conveinient to just question any suspect, when a suspect annoys the interrogator, or just because the person asking the questions is a sadist!!!!!

At no time should torture be used, no matter what the cost may or may not be. And in my opinion anyone who believes otherwise should just wear a swastika to announce their true beliefs, or maybe fly a hammer and sickle flag outside their front door on July 4th!!!!!

[kentuck]

20. That's why I say the devil is in the details..

What type of torture? If our families were about to be killed, would we permit any type of physical pressure on a suspect to prevent them from being killed? Many would probably say yes. However, if you got into details about boiled eggs up his butt or fingernails being plucked out with pliars, then they may hesitate? However, that said, I see no circumstances in any reported cases, Quantanamo or Abu Graib or elsewhere, where that "necessity" existed.

[longship]

26. No excuses, no exceptions

This kind of explanation is precisely the excuses that * & Co are using the justify what they're doing. It hasn't resulted in one single shread of substantive information.

[kentuck]

28. black and white thinking....

Sounds like a Michael Dukakis response when asked about if his wife were raped. No. I've made my conclusion and I'm sticking with it. :)

[longship]

49. With all due respect...

The International Court, Nuremburg, Geneva, and many other international accords, treaties, and agreements have strongly disagreed with your argument in the past. I suggest that you review those findings and then, your position.

[WI Independent]

76. Yes, undoubtedly the LEGAL thing to do...

is let a million people die.

If YOU were the one making the decision, how much comfort will that be when they die?

[jayctravis]

34. If that decision is made...

then it has to be by the person who is doing the torture, and they must be FULLY responsible for any repercussions.

If torture is going to happen in this sort of "clock ticking" scenario the Bush administration thinks happens every day, then the torturer should be subject to criminal investigation and jail time and fully aware of this, even if he is allegedly saving the country.

If an insurgent knows the magical passcode to stop a nuclear bomb that has one minute left on the timer, and someone thinks knocking his teeth out will obtain that information, then by all means do it, but this person still needs to be prosecuted for knocking someone's teeth out.

The "clock ticking" scenario is a rare one, and if the stakes are that high then all bets are off and the torturer *should* care about going to jail. It's a situation like "24". As far as everyday interrogation, then no, torture is not justified.

[kentuck]

35. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?

I agree. There should be criminal penalties.

[Bridget Burke]

79. ...The attack would be allowed to happen. Just like last time.

Would the President get another spike in the polls? Would there be an excuse for another illegal invasion?

[BlueStateModerate]

8. Physical torture? Never.

I depends on how exactly you define 'tortue', though. I'm not too worried about playing loud music, but outside of that, it's below the moral values (REAL moral values) of the United States.

[me b zola]

45. psychological torture is unacceptable

There has been a recent report of U.S. torture techniques that have caused psychosis in the detainee--unacceptable, and illegal.

Torture is torture and is immoral & illegal.

[Just Me]

9. Never, EVER!!!

Torture is ILLEGAL. Torture does NOT operate to gain reliable intelligence. Torture is barabaric and usually associated with attempting to brainwash individuals into operating as a narc or plant.

[KnaveRupe]

10. Only when...

...practiced between consenting adults who have agreed upon safe-words.

Sadly, THAT kind of torture is the kind that our government has a problem with, rather than the Gitmo kind.

[rasputin1952]

11. Never...

there is no situation where torture is acceptable. It doesn't work to extract information, it is an abomination against humanity and it does nothing except place mental and physical pain upon the victim, and great joy for the sadistic bastards that abuse those they can.

I am disgusted by the very thought of torture.

[MajorFlaw]

14. Yup.

[bemildred]

25. Yes, never. nt

[bullimiami]

12. never.

.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard D]

17. You beat me to that one.

(pun not intended)

[Spazito]

15. Never

*

[kanrok]

19. I guess it all depends upon the context and your definition of "torture"

Here's a hypothetical. In one of the Dirty Harry movies, a really really bad guy had a little girl buried with limited oxygen. Harry Callahan shot the really, really bad guy in some part of is anatomy and the bad guy went down. Harry wanted to find out the place where the bad guy buried the little girl because, of course, time was of the essence. The bad guy would not give up the location despite being shot, so Harry stepped on the part of the bad guy's body where he was shot, causing the bad guy to squeal in pain. After a couple of compressions on the injured spot, the bad guy gave up the info, and the little girl was saved. Who here would say that what Harry did in this instance was morally wrong or even unconstitutional? Discuss amongst yourselves.

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Too bad that only happens in the movies

In reality there is no good reason for torturing anyone.

Keep in mind that punishing someone for a proven wrong doing is a different matter. However, even then physical and psychological brutality is inappropriate.

[kanrok]

52. Respectfully, you're ignoring the question

Are there absolutely no circumstances you can think of where torture is acceptable? It's okay if that's what you think. Noble and all, but unrealistic. By saying these things only happen in the movies you're either being naive, obtuse, or intentionally dodging the question.

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. Having been directly affected

by police brutality, NO, NAY, NEVER.

[kanrok]

60. So even if it's your child who is being slowly suffocated

you'd still maintain an absolutist position. Or even if a nuclear bomb will be set off unless you torture the person with the information that will stop the needless slaughter of a million people you still maintain this position? Interesting position.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. Defending yourself or your child against an attacker

has nothing to do with torture.

Preventing a nuclear attack by torturing one person is highly unlikely.

[kanrok]

65. Ummm...look at the original hypothetical

The bad guy buried a little girl, are you saying that if it was your child you wouldn't support the police torturing the bad guy to save your child? Don't dodge the issue. Be honest. And in this day and age, preventing a nuclear attack by torturing one person is certainly much more likely than you think.

[baldguy]

55. What if he's wrong?

[kanrok]

59. Oh, gee...I don't know, what if he's right?

What if it were your child? There are a whole lot of if's, and's and but's. The point here is that taking an absolutist position ignores reality. There are always exceptions. As they say, never say never. The hypothetical cals for a simple yes or no. If it's yes or o, explain why.

[baldguy]

68. If he's wrong, then he's torturing an innocent person.

That's the problem: if you begin with the premise that he's dealing with a "bad guy", you can condone literally ANYTHING Harry does to him - up to and including torture and murder - to get the information. And, maybe even a little revenge as well. After all, the guy's evil. Right?

But, if Harry is wrong - and without being a clairvoyant, there's no way for him to know - then he has committed an atrocity.

Put it another way: would you allow yourself to be tortured by Dirty Harry? He thinks you're guilty, you know you're innocent. Wouldn't you want Harry to HAVE to prove your guilt before he got his Dirty hands on you? If you give Harry license to torture his "bad guys", you shouldn't be surprised when George Bush (or Karl Rove) decides YOU'RE a "bad guy".

The reason we have laws, the reason we have procedures and regulations for investigations, the reason we have trials - is to avoid the consequences of just such a scenario you laid out with the result that I did. Vigilantes don't coexist well with free democracies.

[kanrok]

69. Nice spin, but it doesn't address the main question

Is torture ever appropriate? It's a hypothetical question. Assume everything is true. Is it amoral to use torture in that set of circumstances? You either agree or you don't. I'm trying to explore the general opinion here that it is never appropriate to torture. Taking an absolutist position is interesting to me. There are very few absolutes. Sometimes I think that people here make knee-jerk reactions because they don't want to agree with the other side, no matter how absurd the situation. If it makes you feel better, don't use "Dirty Harry" in the hypothetical. Use Dudley Do-right, as far as I'm concerned. Why is it so hard to see that there are some (admittedly rare) instances when torture is acceptable? To say "Never" "No way" "Under no circumstances" opens opinions to strict scutiny. The hypothetical I outlined has nothing to do with being a vigilante. It has to do with exigent circumstances.

[baldguy]

70. Would you, knowing yourself to be innocent, allow yourself to be tortured?

Your torturer believes you are guilty, and thinks you have imminently vital information. Do you submit to torture?

[kanrok]

71. Seriously, what kind of question is that?

Really, let's stop being obtuse. Answer the question. Either there are instances where torture is appropriate or not.

[longship]

23. Never, never, never

Torture just doesn't work.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Under the circumstances you describe in your op, I cannot think of a time

it would be acceptable, i.e. "a state employing it to gain significant national security-related intelligence"

Under IMMINENT circumstances such as a known bomb planted, with limited time to respond, I might think it acceptable to obtain information by any means known to coerce it, but I do mean IMMINENT as in if one does not act within minutes, hours or days..disaster for many is certain..at that point, the life of one person should be traded for many.

For instance, our government DID have some foreknowledge of 9/11 and had they been paying attention to even only the people on their watch list, they might have figured it out.

However, were it 9/10 and they knew an attack was imminent but didn't have details but did capture Massoui or one of the other hijackers, I would think torture would be acceptable to stop what was to occur tomorrow.

[kentuck]

29. Under very exceptional circumstances...

Which I have heard none of those from Quantanamo.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Yes, I underscored very exceptional circumstances

I think you and I are on the same page about this.

[kentuck]

32. I agree with you.

We should never say never except to say, it should never be used as commonplace as it is today.

[Guaranteed]

74. I agree. Very limited, and improbable, circumstances.

So improbable that it's probably good enough to just say "never," because the TV/movie-type stuff just doesn't happen.

[CBHagman]

31. It's unconstitutional.

Our Bill of Rights bans "cruel and unusual punishment." "Punishment" implies, to me, that the person in question has actually done something unlawful. Torture is used on people who have not yet been convicted of and/or confessed to anything. Therefore, it's before the fact, and it's also cruel.

I know in right-wing fantasyland, the U.S. or the British or someone will capture THE person responsible for 9/11 and extract information through torture and prevent another 9/11. In reality, we're probably seeing more low-level types dragged off (remember the teenaged detainees?) than masterminds.

Life is not like the movies. We are probably gaining more enemies and not saving more lives through the use of harsh methods. It could take decades to undo the harm that's already been done.

[Endangered Specie]

36. Never. (seems to be the consensus)

[Pachamama]

37. Never ever...its wrong, and it doesn't work.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We have to be better than that and its proven that torture doesn't work. I don't believe for a moment that someone desperate enough to do a "suicide mission" and kill many people would be willing to squash the plan just because he's being tortured. And then, maybe more so if his family members were being tortured, but does that mean someone who is innoncent should be tortured to get info out of someone guilty? The answer is absolutely not.

[LeftCoast]

38. Never acceptable, and worse - probably not effective

People who are tortured will say anything to get that torture to stop. We have a group of people in Gitmo and our string of extra-legal "detention centers" who have never been before a judge and who may or may not be 'terrorists.' Just as the 'witches' of salem were tortured to implicate others, these folks will tell us anything we want to hear when pressured enough. Logic and history show that this information will be of questionable value at best.

[baldguy]

39. Civilized humans never find torture acceptable.

If America holds itself up as the champion of freedom & liberty in the world, we should be especially critical of its use.

Instead we've got a fuckwit & his puppetmasters trying to weasel their way out of American Law, International Conventions & Treaties.

[WillyT]

40. When You Try It On Yourself First !!!

And after that... NEVER!!!

:evilfrown:

[bvar22]

41. If you value the Constitution ,

or claim to be a member of ANY mainstream religious faith, or embrace secular humanism, then torture in all its forms is unacceptable under ANY circumstances!!!!!!

If you are one of those who consider "exceptions", then you really need to examine your committments and morality.

[newyawker99]

42. NEVER!! n/t

[me b zola]

46. Never

Never never never

[kentuck]

47. even if your family was held hostage...

and authorities had an accomplice that could save their lives? No torture whatsoever? No slapping them around just a little bit?? I have a difficult time understanding these "Never!" responses if the circumstances were more personal?? By the way, I see no reasons to torture any prisoners anywhere in the world at this time...unless there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in your hometown.

[me b zola]

50. never

There are no conditions that exists today that did not exists when the Geneva Conventions was written. The argument of "if you knew there was a nuclear bomb...", I don't quite get that argument. How would someone know, but not know where? I just think that is a hypothetical question posed {I'm not speaking about you} to play on the fears that memories of 9/11 elicits in people.

As far as the question of if a member of my family were held hostage, there was a episode of West Wing that dealt with a similar issue. When Bartlett's daughter was taken hostage, he relinquished the office of the President to prevent himself from abusing the office because it would be a natural reaction to move heaven and earth to protect your child--including going nuclear. This is similar to the argument that people make in favor of the death penalty.

I stand by my belief.

Torture is illegal & immoral, and should never be used.

[kentuck]

51. I would agree that it is illegal and immoral...

But I'm not sure my reaction would be the same as yours if I could possibly save a family member....? But, you're consistent..

[WI Independent]

75. kentuck, if I'm ever kidnapped...

I want you questioning the accomplices. ;)

I agree with you. I would LIKE to think I wouldn't do it, but if my family is in danger I know myself better than that.

[darkism]

48. Never. Plain and simple. n/t

[Merope215]

54. Never.

That's all.

[starroute]

56. No government should ever have the right to use torture

Governments are essentially soulless machines that have no ability to make moral judgments. Any rights they are given, they will ultimately abuse -- and in the case of torture, that abuse will invariably be soon and frequent.

The real question I see here is whether individuals have the right to use torture in extreme situations like those described by a couple of the posters. That I would say is a private moral issue, similar to the question of whether individuals have the right to kill in self-defense. Supposedly, US soldiers in World War II were known to crank up the field telephone in battlefield situations when it was actually a matter of saving their fellows' lives. But that was not authorized, it was not a matter of official policy, and the decision lay entirely between the indivuals involved and their own consciences.

Governments have no conscience. They cannot be trusted with that sort of power.

[Debs]

57. Never

I don't care if it works or not it is morally indefensable. PERIOD

[sakabatou]

58. Well it depends...

Making someone watch teletubbies for 10 hours straight would be torture... I gues it'd be okay.

But the real torture, one that wreaks havoc on the mind and body is not acceptible.

[Gregorian]

61. When is love unacceptable?

The original question is framed within the context of nation. But even if there weren't nations, perhaps one would find aggression. I would suggest bringing this down to another level. A personal level. When is it ok to torture, in order to be more secure on a personal level? I think ultimately one will find that the only answer to the problem is love. Pain only begets more pain.

[DemGirl7]

62. Never...period n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. NEVER, EVER, NO WAY

It's nothing but a way of indulging the torturers' twisted fantasies.

All the possible "reasons" for torture that I've seen above sound more like movie plots than anything I've heard of happening in real life.

[Imagevision]

66. When the key players are involved.

[Imagevision]

67. To those who say "NEVER" - can you believe that torture hasn't saved

the lives of some of our troops? THere's definitly pro's & cons to this.

If torture prevented another 9-11 would it still be viewed as: "against the rules"??

[Crunchy Frog]

72. On the contrary. I believe that torture has contributed to the deaths

of some of our troops. The main thing that we are accomplishing with torture is to create alot more people who hate us and want to kill us.

I believe torture is far more likely to help bring about another 911 than it is to prevent one.

Anyway, do the ends justify the means? If, say, torturing some random baby to death would somehow save many other lives, would it be justified?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. Actually there are very few pros and the cons are that we can expect

the same when our troops are captured.

[rasputin1952]

73. There are some things that are just plain wrong, torture is one of these.

I hope that no one ever has to come to the situation where they would have a loved one endangered in any way. I know that there are cruel and horrid people out there; but to lower yourself to the level of their cruelty, do you really want to go there?

Some of the questions presented here are great subjects for debate and most certainly should be heard and discussed.

Forget movies and soft core novels. Sure, I would want to exact my own form of vengeance upon someone who would do harm to someone else. But it is the very mind that I possess, that keeps me from going over the line and into the abyss.

Hypotheticals aside, it comes down to a personal view of morality. Torture exists for the pleasure of the sadist, and the chagrin of the victim. A persons character is summed up in the way he or she holds themselves in the most horrid of circumstances.

[rocktivity]

78. Nie, nunca, mai, jamais

and not ever, either.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bridget Burke]

80. Never.

Spy fiction can be entertaining, but it should not be confused with fact.