On the Morality of Torture

[Danoff]

Reports have surfaced that the US has engaged in waterboarding interrogation of captured terrorist organization leaders to obtain information about upcoming attacks. Many people (including Sheppard Smith at Fox news) are outraged by the notion that the US engages in anything considered torture.

Some would argue that we have to torture because the ends justify the means. They would say that if we have to torture one person to save the lives of millions, it is worthwhile. I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do.

To take the opinion that torture of any kind is never acceptable is to take the position that human beings always have a right not to be tortured - regardless of their actions. This is a pretty strong statement, and it misunderstands the nature of human rights.

Rights exist in part because they are reciprocal. In order to ask me to observe your rights, you must observe mine. The instant you violate my rights, you forfeit some of your own. This simply must be true - due to the nature of rights. The reason rights exist is because human beings cannot be considered objectively superior to one another. But to allow one person to violate the rights of another, and then continue to protect that person's rights is to consider him objectively superior. If one man is legitimately allowed to violate anyone else's rights, but everyone else is still required to observe his - that man is being considered morally superior - which invalidates rights entirely.

So human rights must be reciprocal, which means no rights are exempt from forfeit. If someone tortures you, and you have not violated anyone's rights, that person is open to torture himself. I wholly reject the notion that any rights exist that cannot be forfeit (including torture). For this to be the case is to invalidate rights altogether.

For that reason, and perhaps that reason alone, torture can be a legitimate practice. Used against those who have attempted to, or have succeeded in killing thousands of innocent people, torture can be a legitimate and useful practice.


Your thoughts...

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm against any kind of torture whatsoever.

To say that persons that have killed others should be tortured is a bit like saying that I have the right to torture the murderer of my brother. This is a thought I regard as rediculous and inhumane. If there is indeed evidence that an individual has commited a serious murder or a planned terroristic attack, a prison sentence is the way to go. If you torture somebody because he or she murdered somebody, what makes it you to then? Doesn't this make you a criminal as well? Even if my brother were murdered, I don't have any right at all to torture the suspect to get the evidence that he was indeed the killer.

 

[Nicknamealguem]

I'm against any kind of torture whatsoever.

To say that persons that have killed others should be tortured is a bit like saying that I have the right to torture the murderer of my brother. This is a thought I regard as rediculous and inhumane. If there is indeed evidence that an individual has commited a serious murder or a planned terroristic attack, a prison sentence is the way to go. If you torture somebody because he or she murdered somebody, what makes it you to then? Doesn't this make you a criminal as well? Even if my brother were murdered, I don't have any right at all to torture the suspect to get the evidence that he was indeed the killer.

+1 👍, and furthermore, you would lost all your reason, by torturing (has you said, for example) the murder of your brother. How would you justify it? He killed your brother, but you torture him…

Even though, someone violated the rights of another human being, doesn’t mean you have the right to do something unrightfully to that someone. It would take you to the same criminal ground that the criminal person.

 

[Hyst]

Very narrow margin for error. The ends can well justify the means, but because we don't know those ends before we torture someone, it creates a very controversial subject. If you had a captured a terrorist leader (for example) and you knew, with absolutely no uncertainty that he had information that could help you save the lives of (not millions, being realistic let's say a thousand) innocent citizens, then yes. Torture him. Do whatever you have to do to him (that is, within reason - don't go after his wife or kids) to get the information you need.

That is, however, just one specific example where I believe torture is a necessary evil. By the same token, torturing a grunt (low level 'soldier') in an enormous terrorist organization for information about the whereabouts of the group's leader is ludicrous, for many reasons, not the least of which is that he probably doesn't know very much anyway.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I think all this discussion about torture in DC is going to end with banning the practice. I read how torture (water boarding) was very ineffective as a tool in obtaining information or details on persons of interest.

Also, studied reports from other countries like France, Israel, Ireland, Netherlands and a few others, revealed torture is not a good substitution for good detective work, which is why all those countries have stopped using or banned the use of torture. I read about several detainees were water boarded over 100 times, and they never got anything. Chances are, he never knew anything or it simply doesn't work.

There is also the stigma placed on our nation that we tolerate and use torture as a means of gathering data. That can, and will, have a negative impact on us later.

I say we ban it.

 

[Hyst]

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy douche bag, because I really can't stand those mindless anti-government people, but do any of us really think that if the US came out tomorrow and said that from this day forward, we will never torture anyone again, that it would actually stop?

 

[Bram Turismo]

If you had a captured a terrorist leader (for example) and you knew, with absolutely no uncertainty that he had information that could help you save the lives of (not millions, being realistic let's say a thousand) innocent citizens, then yes. Torture him. Do whatever you have to do to him (that is, within reason - don't go after his wife or kids) to get the information you need.

Torture won't give any hints. People who are so determined about their terroristic attacks and their beliefs that a different empire is the evil one, will never admit or show their play cards. You could use the terrorists that crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Center as an example. If you'd torture them, you'd kill them before you'd get your hands on any peice of solid information. Such men put their beliefs or determination ahead of everything, and they'd give their lifes just for their mission to be accomplished. A life is a life. Murdering one person than ten doesn't make you a better human being.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy douche bag, because I really can't stand those mindless anti-government people, but do any of us really think that if the US came out tomorrow and said that from this day forward, we will never torture anyone again, that it would actually stop?

No. In some of the prison terrorists were being held, we never what was going on untill we saw video images. There will always be people torturing others, but it shouldn't stop our determination to reduce and/or stop it completely.

 

[hellnback]

When in Europe 2001, we visited 'old' Carcassonne, a pretty spectacular medieval walled town. While the town was kewl in itself, walking through the narrow streets I stumbled upon a Torture Museum.

You weren't allowed to take pictures (yes, I complied), it was one of the most fascinating places I went during my 6 weeks. Although you wouldn't call the exhibition 'big', you were compelled to read how each one worked and examine the appliance/contrapion. Of course these things were more devised to ultimately kill you, sometimes slowly with as much pain as possible. They also had the 'fear factor' by sometimes the executing was done in public.

Two and a half hours later I exited grateful I didn't live in those times...

 

[Stevisiov]

Torture won't give any hints. People who are so determined about their terroristic attacks and their beliefs that a different empire is the evil one, will never admit or show their play cards. You could use the terrorists that crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Center as an example. If you'd torture them, you'd kill them before you'd get your hands on any peice of solid information. Such men put their beliefs or determination ahead of everything, and they'd give their lifes just for their mission to be accomplished. A life is a life. Murdering one person than ten doesn't make you a better human being.

I am going to appear to go off topic here, but I just want to asses where you lie with other moral issues lie with regards to terrorists.

Say you had a known terrorist who you knew had murdered hundreds of people, for some he has been injured in a shootout, he is badly injured and its likely that if you don't help him, he is going to die. Helping him would take a considerable amount of effort, you need a helicopter which is going to cost significant time and money. Would you save him or just let them die?

The problem with your analogy thus far is its past tense, Bram. He's killed your brother, torturing him now would simply be revenge, fair enough. What if you had two brothers? he's just killed one of you brothers. His partner is out to kill your other brother. If you don't find out who his partner is your other brother could die too, what if you could extract the information out of him to save your second brother, would you torture him to save your brother?

 

[Bram Turismo]

I am going to appear to go off topic here, but I just want to asses where you lie with other moral issues lie with regards to terrorists.

Say you had a known terrorist who you knew had murdered hundreds of people, for some reason or another they are injured and dying its likely that if you don't help them they are going to die, helping them would take a considerable amount of effort, you need a helicopter which is going to cost significant time and money. Would you save them or just let them die?

I'd try to save them, but not by taking the right in my own hands to take his life. If this were a known terrorist, I suspect him of not reveiling any information at all about were his victims are. Not torturing an individual does not equal not caring for one another's life. In my opinion, not torturing somebody is a sign of having respect to another one's life, no matter who this person is. Granted, sometimes I loose myself and think "Just give him the deathpenalty", but what do we accomplish with that? What do you accomplish by torturing an individual when you've not gained any information? If it has come so far that you consider torture, chances are pretty high the suspect won't reveal information during torturing either.

The problem with your analogy thus far is its past tense, Bram. He's killed your brother, torturing him now would simply be revenge, fair enough. What if you had two brothers? he's just killed one of you brothers. His partner is out to kill your other brother. If you don't find out who his partner is your other brother could die too, what if you could extract the information out of him to save your second brother, would you torture him to save your brother?

Time-out! Can I have some time to figure out this dilemma? It would still be wrong, if his way of thinking would be right, we'd have pretty much every perosn that is related to a murder roaming the streets, looking to torture the person they suspect to have committed the crime. And how can you know the person is telling the real truth? Can we be blinded by what we want to hear ourselves? I love my family, yes, but finding out who kiled my brother must stay within borders. That's why we CID, right?

 

[Danoff]

If you torture somebody because he or she murdered somebody, what makes it you to then? Doesn't this make you a criminal as well?

Violating someone's rights after they have forfeit them does not implicate you. If you torture someone who has forfeit his rights by killing thousands of innocent lives, then you are no more implicated than a cop who kidnaps (puts in jail) a kidnapper. The kidnapper did the same thing to someone else that was done to him - only one difference (and it's critical), he did it to someone innocent.

If someone points a gun at you and threatens to kill you, and you shoot him, you have not done anything wrong. You're allowed to appear to violate the rights of those who are attempting to violate yours - but they have forfeit theirs.

You yourself have advocated this exact line of reasoning...

If there is indeed evidence that an individual has commited a serious murder or a planned terroristic attack, a prison sentence is the way to go.

Here you claim that a person forfeits the right to freedom when they commit murder (rightly so). It is exactly the same reasoning that I am using.


I would ask you Bram, and anyone who claims that torture is never acceptable, what makes this right different from any other? We revoke your right to freedom, we revoke your right to vote, we revoke your right to free speech, to bear arms, to life, basically every single human right that exists is revoked when you commit various rights violations yourself. None of these are in dispute, except one - the right not to be tortured. Why?

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm going to look like a complete moron after asking this, but... What does "forfeit" mean?

 

[Stevisiov]

The point I am trying to make with my final paragraph Bram.

Try and play along whith the hypothetical nature because I want to understand exactly where you are coming from. 👍

Here are a list of facts in chronology:

Mr X has just killed your brother A. You know he killed him.

Mr X has been caught.

Brother B is about to be killed by Mr Y, you Know this, but you don't know who Mr Y is.

By knowing who Mr Y is you can save brother B

Mr X knows who Mr Y is, but he isn't going to tell you willingly.

By torturing Mr X you will save your brother B.

Assuming the above statements are facts, would you torture Mr X?

My answer would be yes.

If I could guarantee saving my second brother by torturing the person who killed my first brother, I would.

For me the problem starts to arise when we aren't dealing with facts, but unclear assumptions.

I'm going to look like a complete moron after asking this, but... What does "forfeit" mean?

forfit means to give up, surrender, concede, loose.

If I where to forfit my rights, I would be surrendering them, i.e i would no longer have rights.

 

[PAPAOSA]

I'm going to look like a complete moron after asking this, but... What does "forfeit" mean?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forfeit 👍

 

[Bram Turismo]

For me the problem starts to arise when we aren't dealing with facts, but unclear assumptions.

I'm having a bit of a feeling many think I'm having a rediculous view on torture, but here goes:

First of all, I'd do anything that is in my power to find out who Mr. Y is. That includes everything except for murder, crime, torture, etc. Police, dedectives, and whatnot. If I would fail, I myself personally would be facing this: Will I save my other brother, or will I loose all respect for the enemy's life, and acting without any consideration for whether what he says is true or not? The answers I get are not guaranteed the correct answers, and it is not guaranteed that I will get any answer in the first place.

In fact, I'm beginning to get completely lost in my own point of view and my ability to express myself in English

 

[Stevisiov]

Will I save my other brother, or will I loose all respect for the enemy's life, and acting without any consideration for whether what he says is true or not? The answers I get are not guaranteed the correct answers, and it is not guaranteed that I will get any answer in the first place.

I did state this

By torturing Mr X you will save your brother B.

Assuming the above statements are facts, would you torture Mr X?

In this hypothetical scenarios you can guarantee the above statement to be true. hence them being facts.

As you quite rightly pointed out, in a real situation you can't guarantee this and for me the morals start to become obscured and difficult.

In fact, I'm beginning to get completely lost in my own point of view and my ability to express myself in English [/QUOTE]

That's fair enough. 👍

 

[Keef]

I just watched a waterboarding technique to see what this deal is all about. It didn't look all that bad. I figured a person would be able to simply hold their breath while the wet towel was on their face. Timing looks a little tricky though, because they don't tell you when they're going to start the water.

And then I took a towel out of the closet and folded it up like they did on the video and pressed it tight over my nose and mouth. Tell you what, it's pretty tough to breath through 4 layers of towel. So then I put the towel under the sink to see how quick the water soaked through. Ten seconds later the bottom was still dry. So I put the wet towel over my face to see what it's like breathing through that. I didn't get much air, but I sure as hell wasn't thirsty anymore.

Assuming a person can get a full breath of air and play a mind-game, fighting off the panic that your brain naturally does in a situation like that, I don't see how it would be torture. Hold your breath for a while, breath, hold your breath for a while, etc. The only bad thing that would come of that would be wet hair.

But if you didn't manage to time your breaths right....well then you're ****ed. At least they give you ways to end the process, like things to drop from your hands when you freak out.

Even just casually putting a wet towel over my face and trying to breath made me go "Damn" but like I said if you do it right then nothing bad will come of it. But I'd compare the psychological stress to jumping into freezing cold water. I've done that before. It was my pool, and even though it's only 16 feet wide I could swear I barely made it to the other side, but I don't really remember. That was probably the most panic I've ever felt.

The only way I could see this as being legit torture is if the captors did not provide to way for the detainee to say "stop". If not it could easily result in them passing out, which falls under my category of "extreme distress", and could lead to other things, like brain damage or death.

 

[Omnis]

Reports have surfaced that the US has engaged in waterboarding interrogation of captured terrorist organization leaders to obtain information about upcoming attacks. Many people (including Sheppard Smith at Fox news) are outraged by the notion that the US engages in anything considered torture.

Some would argue that we have to torture because the ends justify the means. They would say that if we have to torture one person to save the lives of millions, it is worthwhile. I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do.

To take the opinion that torture of any kind is never acceptable is to take the position that human beings always have a right not to be tortured - regardless of their actions. This is a pretty strong statement, and it misunderstands the nature of human rights.

Rights exist in part because they are reciprocal. In order to ask me to observe your rights, you must observe mine. The instant you violate my rights, you forfeit some of your own. This simply must be true - due to the nature of rights. The reason rights exist is because human beings cannot be considered objectively superior to one another. But to allow one person to violate the rights of another, and then continue to protect that person's rights is to consider him objectively superior. If one man is legitimately allowed to violate anyone else's rights, but everyone else is still required to observe his - that man is being considered morally superior - which invalidates rights entirely.

So human rights must be reciprocal, which means no rights are exempt from forfeit. If someone tortures you, and you have not violated anyone's rights, that person is open to torture himself. I wholly reject the notion that any rights exist that cannot be forfeit (including torture). For this to be the case is to invalidate rights altogether.

For that reason, and perhaps that reason alone, torture can be a legitimate practice. Used against those who have attempted to, or have succeeded in killing thousands of innocent people, torture can be a legitimate and useful practice.


Your thoughts...

For those reasons, torture cannot be a legitimate practice. You are making the torturer objectively superior. The murderer has his rights removed already by being jailed or executed for the rest of his life after due process.

 

[Danoff]

For those reasons, torture cannot be a legitimate practice. You are making the torturer objectively superior. The murderer has his rights removed already by being jailed or executed for the rest of his life after due process.

Quite the opposite. By requiring that others observe his right not to be tortured (despite any and all actions on his part), you are considering him objectively superior. He can torture them, but they cannot torture him.

The murderer has his rights removed already by being jailed or executed for the rest of his life after due process.

That's exactly my point. We remove rights when people do bad things. Why is this one so different?

 

[Omnis]

Quite the opposite. By requiring that others observe his right not to be tortured (despite any and all actions on his part), you are considering him objectively superior. He can torture them, but they cannot torture him.



That's exactly my point. We remove rights when people do bad things. Why is this one so different?

Because it is not sentenced by due process of law and two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Keef]

There's a difference between civilian criminals and prisoners of war.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

If you are torturing someone who has killed innocents, then your justification is that it is punishment or retribution. Yet the point of interogation is to get information regarding which can be used in the future.

In essence, you are torturing someone for something he may do using what he might have done as an excuse.

If you are certain, have evidence, that he did what he did to forfeit his rights, the system is in place to deal with that; Trial and sentence.

Yet, in many situations which we are reading about, people are being tortured, on the premise that they know something/will do something in the future. In this situation, they may not have done anything yet to forfeit their rights.

 

[niky]

If you are torturing someone who has killed innocents, then your justification is that it is punishment or retribution. Yet the point of interogation is to get information regarding which can be used in the future.

In essence, you are torturing someone for something he may do using what he might have done as an excuse.

If you are certain, have evidence, that he did what he did to forfeit his rights, the system is in place to deal with that; Trial and sentence.

Yet, in many situations which we are reading about, people are being tortured, on the premise that they know something/will do something in the future. In this situation, they may not have done anything yet to forfeit their rights.

This is one of the sticking points in this problem.

If you've captured a terrorist, in a war-zone, bearing arms or witnessed bearing arms against soldiers... or if you've captured one with a house or apartment full of paraphernalia for making explosive devices, you have grounds to consider them hostile combatants who may or may not have killed innocent civilians or may or may not be planning to.

Here, the morality of torture will depend on what your regards of the Geneva convention are... personally, I think if a person holds human life, particularly the value of life of innocent civilians, in total contempt, they do forfeit that basic right for themselves. But there are, unfortunately, laws for dealing with them.

If you have a civilian who you suspect of being a terrorist, without proof, and are using torture to ascertain whether or not he is a terrorist, torture is the worst way to find out.

Under torture, people will admit to anything, if they're weak. Torture is a common practice here in my country, and confessions acquired under torture, or the allegations of torture, are often contradicted by later evidence.

And if they're fanatics, sometimes they won't talk at all.

Torture, as a tool, is useless.

 

[Solid Fro]

I find it humorous that some people are concerned about the well-being of terrorists... uh, I mean Man-Made Disasters of the Overseas Contingency Operation.



Some of you have forgotten.

And no.. you cannot change my stance on this issue. Thanks for playing though.

 

[YSSMAN]

There's a difference between civilian criminals and prisoners of war.

Problem:

These people were often labeled "enemy combatants," which made them neither. I've yet to figure out where that justifies being waterboarded 183 times in a single month.


---
Side Note: I think this is the first time in a very long time that Solid Lifters and I have (generally) agreed on something.

 

[Omnis]

Some of the people held and tortured haven't even been accused of anything. (Sup, Ayman Batarfi) Anyway, we don't even know. Am I the only one bothered by secret prisons?

What bothers me even more is that we don't even have a President who will do anything to investigate anything.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I find it humorous that some people are concerned about the well-being of terrorists... uh, I mean Man-Made Disasters of the Overseas Contingency Operation.



Some of you have forgotten.

And no.. you cannot change my stance on this issue. Thanks for playing though.

I take this as a sign you have respect for them at all, then? So does this view make you think people in the Middle-East are "disasters" or only the terrorists? Having no repect for them makes it already wrong for you to torture them since this would be a practice just to get your revenge. As I said, chances are near 100% those kind of terrorists will never ever say anything about what they have planned, so torture is a complete waste of time.

 

[Stevisiov]

I just watched a waterboarding technique to see what this deal is all about. It didn't look all that bad. I figured a person would be able to simply hold their breath while the wet towel was on their face. Timing looks a little tricky though, because they don't tell you when they're going to start the water.

And then I took a towel out of the closet and folded it up like they did on the video and pressed it tight over my nose and mouth. Tell you what, it's pretty tough to breath through 4 layers of towel. So then I put the towel under the sink to see how quick the water soaked through. Ten seconds later the bottom was still dry. So I put the wet towel over my face to see what it's like breathing through that. I didn't get much air, but I sure as hell wasn't thirsty anymore.

Assuming a person can get a full breath of air and play a mind-game, fighting off the panic that your brain naturally does in a situation like that, I don't see how it would be torture. Hold your breath for a while, breath, hold your breath for a while, etc. The only bad thing that would come of that would be wet hair.

But if you didn't manage to time your breaths right....well then you're ****ed. At least they give you ways to end the process, like things to drop from your hands when you freak out.

Even just casually putting a wet towel over my face and trying to breath made me go "Damn" but like I said if you do it right then nothing bad will come of it. But I'd compare the psychological stress to jumping into freezing cold water. I've done that before. It was my pool, and even though it's only 16 feet wide I could swear I barely made it to the other side, but I don't really remember. That was probably the most panic I've ever felt.

The only way I could see this as being legit torture is if the captors did not provide to way for the detainee to say "stop". If not it could easily result in them passing out, which falls under my category of "extreme distress", and could lead to other things, like brain damage or death.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

Just because it looks like its easy doesn't mean it is. If it was, it wouldn't be an 'effective' method now would it.

The problem with torture, is that many will just admit to anything to stop them from being tortured further. It's not a reliable way of getting answers. Since its use of gaining information isn't good, I don't think torture should be allowed as a practice by government.

 

[nobuffalo]

I wouldn't call trying to save the lives of thousands of people a "complete waste of time".

 

[Stevisiov]

I wouldn't call trying to save the lives of thousands of people a "complete waste of time".

Why? how many lives were saving torturing those involved!?

Have you got an example where torturing alone, has saved thousands of lives?