Is torture legitimate?

[jAk88]

Besides the fact that torture is morally wrong (I don't want to talk about the ethics of torture), I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty. Anyone who is innocent of anything can easily become guilty under the threat of torture. They will admit to anything. I'd admit to killing your mother if someone was about to drill holes in my leg.

[BrianEtrius]

The real question of torture is do the ends justify the means?

If you answer yes, then torture is acceptable. In you say no, then it isn't.

It's a simple question.

[jAk88]

At 5/12/09 11:16 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: The real question of torture is do the ends justify the means?

If you answer yes, then torture is acceptable. In you say no, then it isn't.

It's a simple question.

The ends in this discussion are questionable. And because they are so questionable and unreliable, the ends do not justify the means. So no, it isn't acceptable. There is a reason why torture cannot be used in a court of law.

[Generalissimus]

The end doesn't justify the means. If you torture terrorists for information, are you really any better than the terrorists?

[jAk88]

At 5/12/09 11:21 PM, Generalissimus wrote: The end doesn't justify the means. If you torture terrorists for information, are you really any better than the terrorists?

That isn't the point. We are trying to look at it from an applicable point of view, not ethical. Whether we are "better" than anyone is subjective from person to person, society to society and is irrelevant to the debate.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/12/09 11:23 PM, jAk88 wrote: That isn't the point. We are trying to look at it from an applicable point of view, not ethical. Whether we are "better" than anyone is subjective from person to person, society to society and is irrelevant to the debate.

Boy is correct. He specifically said he wants to discuss application vs. ethics. Application we know it doesn't work. We know that the information gleaned from it does nothing. If you ask me if I'm a pedophile? I'm going to say no. If you then beat the shit out of me, water board me, or use other torture tactics on me and make it very clear the only way this stops is if I admit I'm a pedophile, then guess what? I'll admit to fucking all the kids you want to make it end.

That's why it doesn't work, you torture because you believe the person will not give you a truthful answer otherwise, but when you resort to it you already have a believe of what "the truth" is, and your subject will eventually pick up on that and even if they know nothing will say whatever they think they must to make the pain end.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty.

I would imagine that the results are directly related to the type of torture. There are after all many different ways to antagonize a person. "Torture" doesn't necessarily equate to the threat of physical pain; it can be an entirely psychological enterprise as well.

[Jinzoa]

At 5/13/09 01:13 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty.

it can be an entirely psychological enterprise as well.

Depending on the victim the actual torture/death threat of loved ones can generally produce results now and again.

[Diederick]

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: Besides the fact that torture is morally wrong (I don't want to talk about the ethics of torture), I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty. Anyone who is innocent of anything can easily become guilty under the threat of torture. They will admit to anything. I'd admit to killing your mother if someone was about to drill holes in my leg.

Well, it eventually does boil down to the fact that torture is inhumane.

In some country torture is common law, in others it is not. Which country is more right (or less wrong) then another? And what would be the exact definition of torture? And then how, do we get the truth out of people? Should getting the 'truth' out of people be our goal in the first place? Are there humane alternatives to torture? Etc.

In my world torture is not legitimate. But who cares what a piece of paper says; if you want to know whether it's legal where you live you can just look it up or call your local government for Pete's sake. What is really interesting is whether God would be in favour of the death penalty... somehow I think he is.

[Diederick]

Besides.

It is plain obvious that torture doesn't work, for the reason stated here many times already (the information you get out of it might just as well be bollocks). It is threatening someone that will get you better answers. But do we find threatening a person torture?

I mean, if I have to say something to stop an incredible pain or actually save my life, I'll probably just say it. Whether it was that I fucked two kids under the overpass or that I did in fact kill Jan Peter Balekenende - it doesn't matter, I'll most likely admit to whatever is presented to me. But if 'they' tell me something bad will happen if I tell a lie, then we're talking - and I mean for real.

If you want the truth, don't torture them, yet. Make sure they know you're serious, give them a taste for all I care - and then ask questions. Let them know that you'll be checking up their answers, and if they answer wrongfully... *ouch* It's much like the penalty for lying when under oath, it's a little threat to keep things real.

[CBP]

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: Besides the fact that torture is morally wrong (I don't want to talk about the ethics of torture), I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty. Anyone who is innocent of anything can easily become guilty under the threat of torture. They will admit to anything. I'd admit to killing your mother if someone was about to drill holes in my leg.

That's exactly the problem with it. There are ethics issues, but ignoring those, torture, or "enhanced interrogation" is still bad because any evidence obtained through torture is unreliable at best.

I still think you are missing the worst aspect of torture though: torture kills American soldiers. What is happening in the Middle East right now is that people are being captured and tortured, and then their family members go and join the Taliban and kill American soldiers, as well as any other soldier in the area, not to mention the civilian casualties from suicide bombers.

[adrshepard]

At 5/13/09 12:17 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That's why it doesn't work, you torture because you believe the person will not give you a truthful answer otherwise, but when you resort to it you already have a believe of what "the truth" is, and your subject will eventually pick up on that and even if they know nothing will say whatever they think they must to make the pain end.

Too bad you weren't at the CIA in 2001; then you could have explained all this and they would never have bothered to explore the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques to begin with. I'm sure that all the analysts and interrogators never even considered the possibility that the detainees would simply say what they thought we wanted to hear. They're all idiots, obviously, and we, as young civilians with no experience in intelligence gathering, know better than them.

At 5/13/09 06:26 PM, CBP wrote: I still think you are missing the worst aspect of torture though: torture kills American soldiers. What is happening in the Middle East right now is that people are being captured and tortured, and then their family members go and join the Taliban and kill American soldiers, as well as any other soldier in the area, not to mention the civilian casualties from suicide bombers.

So let me get this straight. The worst "torture" we performed was waterboarding, which leaves no physical marks, inflicts no pain, presents no lethal risk, and which, according to figures, never lasts more than 30 seconds for most people (a few went over a minute). We did this to three detainees, all of them confirmed high-level terrorists in Al-Queda.
Now, members of their families, or friends or sympathizers etc, all of whom are living in a highly patriarchal and restrictive society (in which corporal punishment for crimes is widespread and accepted) become so enraged at the humiliation and "mental suffering" of these terrorists that they decide to cut ties with their normal lives, abandon their friends and families, and devote themselves to killing as many US soldiers as possible. This, to them, is legitimate retaliation.
It's so obvious, isn't it?
Of course, what they should be worried about is how their terrorist acts will cause US to react, since murder and death are far worse than "mental suffering", and we have far more destructive capability than they do.
Oh wait, they don't have to worry, because our nation is filled with pussy-footed moralists such as you. Too afraid to embrace one's own moral values as righteous and true, you're incapable of judging anyone by any standard. You find reason to excuse any conduct, no matter how heinous, on the basis that it must be someone or everyone else's fault.
The real irony is that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists would hold their greatest scorn not for those who determinedly fight against them, but for pusillanimous relativists like yourself.

[Elfer]

At 5/13/09 07:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: So let me get this straight. The worst "torture" we performed was waterboarding, which leaves no physical marks, inflicts no pain, presents no lethal risk, and which, according to figures, never lasts more than 30 seconds for most people (a few went over a minute). We did this to three detainees, all of them confirmed high-level terrorists in Al-Queda.

You're aware that waterboarding has been tried as a crime in US military courts, and that US soldiers have given testimony relating to waterboarding as evidence for the prosecution in war crimes trials, right?

Also, there's a substantial difference between what you've described and what happened. For example, would you consider it torture if it was used on a single person 183 times in a month?

Also note that the memo also apparently said that he revealed all of his valuable information before being subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/13/09 07:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Too bad you weren't at the CIA in 2001; then you could have explained all this and they would never have bothered to explore the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques to begin with. I'm sure that all the analysts and interrogators never even considered the possibility that the detainees would simply say what they thought we wanted to hear. They're all idiots, obviously, and we, as young civilians with no experience in intelligence gathering, know better than them.

In this case I guess we do. I'm not basing this on my own opinion, I'm basing this on what I've heard torture victims (most of them American) testify to. Not to mention we have seen numerous cases where intensive interrogation, or improper procedure produced false confessions (getting off torture for a minute, what about Henry Lee Lucas? They just kept feeding him murder cases and all Henry just kept on confessing. Because he liked the idea of being seen as a prolific serial killer, going way beyond the crimes he actually did commit). It seems common sense that if you put somebody in a situation where they are being interogated, or extreme threats and techniques are introduced the person will look for the easiest way to make it stop. If you're interrogator either through their verbiage, or through what happens when you answer a question "wrongly", gives you the impression there is an answer to make it end, after enough time they're going to give you the answer you want so the situation that is causing them discomfort will end. But since there was a demand by the higher ups to get results, and our law enforcement agencies and elected officials have been showing flagrant disregard for the law or the Constitution since 9/11 in the name of "safety" I can see why they went this route. Feeling powerful, being in control, and tormenting people you see as less human or valuable then you can be pretty intoxicating.

[FuZzYLoG1C]

All interrogation questions are pointed and under our system all congressional representatives who had a say in the policy were briefed and saying that people had a chance and choice to stop it.

These "Enhanced interrogation techniques" were not preformed on any random sand nigs they captured but on people who were higher up in the ranks and could drop actionable intelligence that would save American lives.

Now I do think that in any sense these actions were wrong because we are the USA supposedly rejecting inhumane acts and the like and no matter to what means you justify it it is still wrong.

[adrshepard]

At 5/14/09 12:55 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: In this case I guess we do...But since there was a demand by the higher ups to get results, and our law enforcement agencies and elected officials have been showing flagrant disregard for the law or the Constitution since 9/11 in the name of "safety" I can see why they went this route. Feeling powerful, being in control, and tormenting people you see as less human or valuable then you can be pretty intoxicating.

Oh, I guess you're not an intelligence expert after all; you're a professional psychologist. Do you honestly believe that all this "common sense" was lost on all the people involved in suggesting the techniques, developing the legal rationale, performing them, and then interpreting the results? Do you think you're just stunningly original and insightful or is everyone else just stupid?

Since we don't have all the facts in this case, it's premature to conclude what these people were thinking or why they did what they did, but is it so far-fetched to assume that if we, normal people, thought about these issues, they did as well?

At 5/13/09 07:34 PM, Elfer wrote: You're aware that waterboarding has been tried as a crime in US military courts, and that US soldiers have given testimony relating to waterboarding as evidence for the prosecution in war crimes trials, right?

Right. If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to trials after WWII against alleged Japanese war criminals. The main difference is that waterboarding was used against legitimate Allied POWs, while this time the targets were illegal combatants and terrorists. They don't merit the Geneva Convention protections as I see it, no matter how much the Supreme Court twisted the Convention text to say otherwise.

Also, there's a substantial difference between what you've described and what happened. For example, would you consider it torture if it was used on a single person 183 times in a month?

That number is just absurd. It doesn't make sense that they would do it that many times, or else there is something crucial missing from the public story. I'm still waiting to see an official comment.

Also note that the memo also apparently said that he revealed all of his valuable information before being subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

Yes, according to "anonymous former officials," which doesn't mean much. As if the information gathered from one of three top Al-Queda members would only be limited to a few people? The CIA is a giant bureaucracy, like all government organizations, and an "official" could be anyone from the interrogator himself to some middling analyst who heard some gossip.

In any case, if you think a suspect has given up all he knows, why not press him a little harder just to be safe?

[morefngdbs]

At 5/13/09 12:17 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/12/09 11:23 PM, jAk88 wrote: That isn't the point. We are trying to look at it from an applicable point of view, not ethical. Whether we are "better" than anyone is subjective from person to person, society to society and is irrelevant to the debate.

Boy is correct. He specifically said he wants to discuss application vs. ethics. Application we know it doesn't work. We know that the information gleaned from it does nothing.

;;;;
I've read the thread to what's now posted , I came back to this point.
Many of you seem to be looking at this from cases recently & in past 'war time' circumstances.

As to it being effective.
Missing child, caught kidnapper...child is in eminant danger of death somewhere. Suspect refuses to reveal childs location during normal questioning. Put bullet through knee cap of suspect.
Inform suspect when he regains composure, that his nuts are getting the next round, if the location of child isn't revealed.
Suspect gives up child's location.

Did I torture the alleged scumbag...I personally believe I did.
Did the end justify the means... I M O absolutely, even if the child is found dead .
If the suspect couldn't reveal a location... then he's either one tough mother, or he doesn't know.
But often before a suspect is tortured, they are already proven to be involved by other evidence & torture in my case expediates the finding of the child.
Which IMO again , means it is justifiable aka legitimate reason .

More-ally (joke) I'm not a very nice person.

[Proteas]

If it was up to me, we would torture. But it wouldn't be any of this mid-evil bullshit, or anything like that... I'd go for sensory deprivation.

Lock the guy in a cell with...
- No windows
- No clock
- No calender
- No radio
- Basic amenities (bed, commode, 3 squares a day)
- And most of all... no human contact. Not even with the guards.

A slot in the door opens up to give them food and amenities, and that's it. Lights turn on to signal the start of the day, lights turn off to signal the end of it. I'd say that after a week of being left to yourself with no contact with the outside world and not being able to tell what day or time it was, you'd be on the verge of psychotic breakdown from having all your days run together in a blur.

You'd pretty much be ready to talk to anyone about anything... and all we'll have to ask is "What do you know?" Don't phrase it as "We know you know [fill in the blank]" because then that will give them a clue as to what you want to hear from them, just ask them what they know. And if they don't get the idea, slide that little slot shut, and leave them alone for another few days. Imagine the turmoil and inner dialogues being locked up like that would create.

We treat prisoner's in our own country this way in maximum security prisons, so you damn well can't argue that it's a violation of human rights, plus... we wouldn't be running the risk of lowering ourselves to the level of our enemies.

[morefngdbs]

At 5/15/09 10:56 AM, Proteas wrote: You'd pretty much be ready to talk to anyone about anything... and all we'll have to ask is "What do you know?"

;;;;
Puts prisoner in uncomfortable position looking at their private parts...put freshly sharpened (sharpening can be happening in the same room ,when prisoner is brought in & hog tied) , knife up to prisoners scrotum and make a small slice ;-)
"What do you know ? "
Very few would not spill everything they could .

I could do this job !

[Proteas]

At 5/15/09 11:02 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I could do this job !

... I feel like the Spanishfli from the JoeCartoon series after reading that post.

DUDE, DAT'S FUCKED UP.

[1337-Ness]

At 5/12/09 11:14 PM, jAk88 wrote: Besides the fact that torture is morally wrong (I don't want to talk about the ethics of torture), I think the case can easily be made for the fact that torture produces results that are unreliable and faulty. Anyone who is innocent of anything can easily become guilty under the threat of torture. They will admit to anything. I'd admit to killing your mother if someone was about to drill holes in my leg.

Torture is defantly illegal, although if it is mild, it's not so bad. For example, if you kicked someone as a torture statement, then, you could get away with it. But it may be illegal to do that to elderly/female etc.

[Ericho]

At 5/15/09 11:16 AM, Proteas wrote: ... I feel like the Spanishfli from the JoeCartoon series after reading that post.

DUDE, DAT'S FUCKED UP.

Actually, it's DUDE, DAT WAS FUCKED UP. Whatever, though.

[Proteas]

At 5/15/09 12:40 PM, Ericho wrote: Actually, it's DUDE, DAT WAS FUCKED UP. Whatever, though.

I thought it sounded off. But my point still remains, though.

My idea; legally applicable with no long-term physical damage, and at most, a slight chance of psychological damage (claustrophobia). Argue against this, then you have to start arguing against the way we treat high-risk prisoners in our own country, which opens up a whole different can of worms.

More's idea.... take one simple question and surround it with such legally and morally unethical practices as to be disturbing, and present it as a solution.

[morefngdbs]

At 5/15/09 12:56 PM, Proteas wrote: My idea; a whole different can of worms.

More's idea.... take one simple question and surround it with such legally and morally unethical practices as to be disturbing, and present it as a solution.

;;;;
First of all , I thought this wasn't supose to be about 'ethic's' .
Secondly I'm in a damn hurry & haven't got 2 weeks of waiting around, feeding some low life who's having a relaxing time out.
Third if I slip & there's one less murderous scumbag out there...I've just made it a timy bit safer for children to walk the streets !

I'm in a hurry & that's why the knife's SHARP !

[poxpower]

I'd be all for torture if it worked.

But as it's been said. Why the hell SHOULD it work? You can just lie your way out of it.
When you find a way for people to not lie, then you can resume torture.

[AapoJoki]

At 5/15/09 02:25 PM, poxpower wrote: When you find a way for people to not lie, then you can resume torture.

You can always ask them things you already know...

[adrshepard]

At 5/15/09 02:25 PM, poxpower wrote: I'd be all for torture if it worked.

But as it's been said. Why the hell SHOULD it work? You can just lie your way out of it.
When you find a way for people to not lie, then you can resume torture.

If torturing someone was a one time event, then yes, it probably wouldn't work so much. But, in telling your captors the truth, it's in your best interests that they confirm what you said was true. That way, you may escape further torture or maybe even be rewarded. If they figured out you lied, at the very least they will torture you again, perhaps in a worse way than before.

I would imagine this is a central part of an interrogator's job: finding answers that are both useful and relatively easy to verify.

[foolonthehillz]

Torture is sometimes both sufficient and necessary- but most nations are too indiscriminate in it's use, and assume that it'll work on anyone- which is false. It will work on some people, because of priorities and psychological mindset.

[Xemras]

At 5/13/09 07:34 PM, Elfer wrote: Also, there's a substantial difference between what you've described and what happened. For example, would you consider it torture if it was used on a single person 183 times in a month?

Would anyone consider it immoral to drop two atomic bombs on two residential areas killing tens- if not hundreds of thousands of people just to end a war that already has a death toll in the MILLIONS?

[Ericho]

At 5/15/09 02:25 PM, poxpower wrote: But as it's been said. Why the hell SHOULD it work? You can just lie your way out of it.
When you find a way for people to not lie, then you can resume torture.

Isn't there something called truth serum that forces you to tell the truth or something like that?