On the Morality of Torture

[Speedy Samurai]

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.

It's not the terrorists I am concerned with. It's the people who are given the label of 'terrorist' and then tortured for information they might not have.

But hey, why don't we torture them all and let god sort it?

 

[Omnis]

It's not the terrorists I am concerned with. It's the people who are given the label of 'terrorist' and then tortured for information they might not have.

But hey, why don't we torture them all and let god sort it?

Yeah, like people with Gadsden flags and libertarian bumper stickers.

 

[YSSMAN]

Am I the only one bothered by secret prisons?

I'd hope not. I think most of us share that sentiment...

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

So far, this is the biggest disagreement I've had with the President. Although he has exempted the torturers themselves (bad idea, IMO), his "kinda-sorta-maybe" approach to going after the ringleaders is really irking me. Congress apparently wants to do it, it sounds like the problem is whether or not we should convict these people (we should).

 

[Danoff]

Some of you are arguing against a straw-man. I find it very hard to believe that anyone here would advocate the torture of an innocent person. So when you argue that some of the people being tortured are innocent - I think nobody here will advocate that that is right.

...but I have seen few, if any, arguments in this thread that claim that a guilty mass murderer should be exempt from torture.

 

[Solid Lifters]

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

I would, if it does the opposite and is a 'waste of time', which I believe the use of torture for the purpose of obtaining valuable data is doing. It's taking away from proper detective work which has been proven repeatedly to be better at obtaining critical data in a timely manner. So I see torture as bad, but for that reason alone.

I just want to make it clear that I'm against torture as a means of gathering crucial data. I am basing my opinion on what I have read so far from what the news has reported, which I admit is not as much as I probably should have read. Claims I'm a bit too ignorant to formulate a proper opinion would be valid.

As we all are aware, the news doesn't always report the truth, as it should. I could and will change my mind if I read more details from the pro side, if they make logical sense (prove to be effective in a timely manner and DON'T disrupt or impede good detective work, which I've read it has.)

As far as knowing somebody is guilty, beyond reason of doubt, and is responsible for horrific atrocities, I have no problem making his/her life a living hell.

EDIT:

...but I have seen few, if any, arguments in this thread that claim that a guilty mass murderer should be exempt from torture.

I've just made this more clear.

 

[Leonidae]

torturing terrorists just fuels the desire for more martyrs, suicide bombers and terrorists. torture just pours fuel to the fire.. and terrorists or not, they are members of some country, and that nation will be enraged for the treatment their citizens got despite what they did..

 

[Solid Lifters]

torturing terrorists just fuels the desire for more martyrs, suicide bombers and terrorists. torture just pours fuel to the fire.. and terrorists or not, they are members of some country, and that nation will be enraged for the treatment their citizens got despite what they did..

No it wont. They're just going to do all that stuff, anyway.

 

[Solid Fro]

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?

The American government no longer says Terrorists and the War on Terror. I have no respect for terrorists and those who harbor them. I was pointing out the absurdity of Mr. Obama's actions.

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.

Really? REALLY REALLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

 

[Joey D]

Does torture even work? I mean think about it, if you were undergoing torture you would probably say anything to make it stop if it was bad enough, whether that something is right or wrong. And if the torturers already knew what was right or wrong, then there would be no justification for them to torture the person in the first place.

Also how can we be sure that the person being tortured actually has any useful information? Causing them more harm isn't going to produce relevant information, I believe the old saying is "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip". And there is really know way for anyone to know if that person knows something or not, even if they were part of a given plot that does not make the privy to all the information.

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?

No I am bothered by it as well because I'm willing to wager more goes on there that the general population never gets wind of...and that doesn't sit well with me.

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

Agreed, I really wish Obama would do something about it.

 

[Omnis]

Some of you are arguing against a straw-man. I find it very hard to believe that anyone here would advocate the torture of an innocent person. So when you argue that some of the people being tortured are innocent - I think nobody here will advocate that that is right.

...but I have seen few, if any, arguments in this thread that claim that a guilty mass murderer should be exempt from torture.

Straw man? Wouldn't that be a red herring?

 

[Touring Mars]

Some of you are arguing against a straw-man. I find it very hard to believe that anyone here would advocate the torture of an innocent person. So when you argue that some of the people being tortured are innocent - I think nobody here will advocate that that is right.

...but I have seen few, if any, arguments in this thread that claim that a guilty mass murderer should be exempt from torture.

Similarly, not many people would disagree that guilty mass murderers deserve harsh punishment, but even so, this is not a justification for sanctioning torture. In terms of the potential benefits (e.g. in gathering usable information), the "legitimacy" of torture doesn't depend on the guilt of the victim... by sanctioning the use of torture at all, you are tacitly condoning all potential injustices and abuses of power before the fact. When Dick Cheney asks us to "remember the successes", he is also asking us to forget the injustices, not to mention the criminality.

 

[Pupik]

Torture wouldn't be such a big deal if people stopped videotaping and photographing it.

Idiots.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Torture wouldn't be such a big deal if people stopped videotaping and photographing it.

Idiots.

Are you referring to someone with a camera in the middle of Abu Ghraib, or Eli Roth?

Actually, why can't both be true?

 

[Mark T]

Let's say the government caught a suspect with explosives in his back pack, and they somehow managed to capture him before he could detonate the bomb. The government knew of other planned attacks and this guy had been recorded discussing the plans but did not disclose a location. Would it be wrong to torture the person to try and establish the location of the other attacks?

We also have to establish what we mean by torture. There are the medieval versions which are gruesome but there are also other techniques such as sleep deprivation.

Wiki: [edit] Torture
Sleep deprivation can be used as a means of torture. Under one interrogation technique, a subject might be kept awake for several days and when finally allowed to fall asleep, suddenly awakened and questioned. Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel from 1977-83, described his experience of sleep deprivation when a prisoner of the KGB in Russia as follows:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep...Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.[citation needed]

In 2006, Australian Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock argued that sleep deprivation does not constitute torture. [29] In rats, prolonged, complete sleep deprivation increases both food intake and energy expenditure, leading to weight loss and, ultimately, death.[30] Nicole Bieske, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International Australia, has stated, "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture.

If it can be proved that an individual is linked to plans to kill innocent people then torture should definitely be an option. Prison is not a punishment, especially in many european countries and the US. Why should they be allowed to live when an individual is planning to end the lives of others?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Really? REALLY REALLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

Ehm, where did I read that the CIA and the American government got the evidence of him being involved in 9/11 through torture? During a raid a harddisk was found with all the plans and whatnot. As one of the leaders in Al-Qaida, you don't need to use torture to proove this man was a part of the 9/11 attack planning. You do know that the CIA and FBI are better at detective work than anyone else? Even if there are reports that the CIA tortured him, it's not the torturing that brought him to court to face his punishment.

Also, what is it with you and your hatred against Obama? Keep your Obama nonsense to the presidential thread, and keep yourself on-topic.

 

[Joey D]

If it can be proved that an individual is linked to plans to kill innocent people then torture should definitely be an option. Prison is not a punishment, especially in many european countries and the US. Why should they be allowed to live when an individual is planning to end the lives of others?

Let's say a US or UK solider is captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever we are having a war at. They are there to kill people, some of them very well may be innocent. Is it OK for them to be tortured?

 

[Mark T]

Let's say a US or UK solider is captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever we are having a war at. They are there to kill people, some of them very well may be innocent. Is it OK for them to be tortured?

Our soldiers are there fighting terrorist organisations. There is not a pre-concieved plan to kill innocent people. In a war you will always have civilian casualties, it's simply too hard to avoid especially when the terrorists are hiding themselves within civilian buildings.

A member of your family is kidnapped and being hidden in a location known only to the kidnapper. In seven days your family member will die unless the kidnapper discloses the location. You call the Police and they interrogate the kidnapper. He says he will never let you know where they are. The only option is for the Police to use torture methods to get him to reveal the location. Would you refuse the Police authority to do so and let that family member die?

 

[Joey D]

Our soldiers are there fighting terrorist organisations. There is not a pre-concieved plan to kill innocent people. In a war you will always have civilian casualties, it's simply too hard to avoid especially when the terrorists are hiding themselves within civilian buildings.

You need to view it from the other side though, to some of those in the Middle East we are the the ones brings terror to their lands. And it's not all the time that terrorist and other enemies are after killing innocent people, they may be innocent in our eyes but not in theirs. Saying it's OK for the US or the UK to do it to terrorist but it's not OK for the terrorist organisations to do it to US or UK soldiers doesn't make any sense. Torture should be a universal wrong in my opinion, no matter who's doing it. I don't want to see US soldiers beheaded on TV, just as I'm sure those in the Middle East do not want to see their people tortured or at least hear reports of them being tortured.

A member of your family is kidnapped and being hidden in a location known only to the kidnapper. In seven days your family member will die unless the kidnapper discloses the location. You call the Police and they interrogate the kidnapper. He says he will never let you know where they are. The only option is for the Police to use torture methods to get him to reveal the location. Would you refuse the Police authority to do so and let that family member die?

That scenario makes no sense. How can the police have the kidnapper in custody and not know where they captured him at? And if he hasn't been captured then how would you torture him? Pester him with repeated phone calls? Spam e-mails? Rick-rolling?

Plus I do not believe the police can torture an individual, they can, as you've said, interrogate them however and I believe that to be pretty effective judging by the results.

 

[Duke]

Why would you assume that the kidnapper has the victim hidden in the same place (s)he was captured?

 

[Mark T]

That scenario makes no sense. How can the police have the kidnapper in custody and not know where they captured him at? And if he hasn't been captured then how would you torture him? Pester him with repeated phone calls? Spam e-mails? Rick-rolling?

Plus I do not believe the police can torture an individual, they can, as you've said, interrogate them however and I believe that to be pretty effective judging by the results.

Let's say he was seen in the area at the time and they captured him two days later at a different location to where he is hiding your family member.

Let's say the Police had the option to torture him (method is irrelevant) to get the answer. The kidnapper admitted to taking them, but point blank refused to tell you or Police where they were. he will not accept money as a bargaining chip. Would you give the authorities permission to use torture to try and get the location?

 

[Joey D]

Why would you assume that the kidnapper has the victim hidden in the same place (s)he was captured?

If you kidnapped someone wouldn't you be with them? I mean if you just left them in a room they probably could eventually escape.

Let's say he was seen in the area at the time and they captured him two days later at a different location to where he is hiding your family member.

Let's say the Police had the option to torture him to get the answer. The kidnapper admitted to taking them, but point blank refused to tell you or Police where they were. he will not accept money as a bargaining chip. Do you give the authorities permission to use torture to try and get the location.

I'm not going to play the "let's just say" game here. But it's not my call on the tactics the police use, I won't agree with them but it's not my place to say one way or the other. However, I seriously doubt they would torture someone since that would make them look bad.

 

[Mark T]

If you kidnapped someone wouldn't you be with them? I mean if you just left them in a room they probably could eventually escape.



I'm not going to play the "let's just say" game here. But it's not my call on the tactics the police use, I won't agree with them but it's not my place to say one way or the other. However, I seriously doubt they would torture someone since that would make them look bad.

Well if you tied someone up with cable ties and gagged them, no. Unless they're MacGyver or Chuck Norris they aren't moving.

It's a pretty simple question to answer. You have a person who has caused harm to another with no legitimate reason. You have an option to torture them to save the innocent person or you can sit by and let the family member die.

I would without hesitation give permission to save my innocent family member.

 

[Joey D]

Once again, it's not your call to make whether the police use torture or not, and I'm telling you they woudn't because of the public backlash.

And no, it is not a simple question to answer because you can say all sorts of things now but, and may the gods forbid this, if you ever were in that situation things could change. As of now I would not support the torture of that individual because how am I to know they are going to give the police the correct answer? You could end up making a bad situation worse.

 

[Mark T]

Once again, it's not your call to make whether the police use torture or not, and I'm telling you they woudn't because of the public backlash.

And no, it is not a simple question to answer because you can say all sorts of things now but, and may the gods forbid this, if you ever were in that situation things could change. As of now I would not support the torture of that individual because how am I to know they are going to give the police the correct answer? You could end up making a bad situation worse.

Maybe my morals are out of order, but in that hyperthetical situation I would torture the person myself to save someone close to me.

 

[Joey D]

Maybe my morals are out of order, but in that hyperthetical situation I would torture the person myself to save someone close to me.

I don't really know if there is a sound answer to your situation to be honest, to me it seems like a bad case of you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Touring Mars]

My problem with condoning torture in "ticking bomb" scenarios in real-life is that it is often alot less clear cut that the "guilty" parties are really guilty at all (Jean Charles De Menezes springs to mind) but merely presumed guilty (either directly or by association). In my view, this clearly goes against the central tenets of justice as practiced in (supposedly) civilised countries such as ours - the right to a fair trial and the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty".

Most people who administer or sanction the use of torture only do so because they are operating under the assumption that they will not be prosecuted for it - but creating the conditions under which torture can be used "legitimately" also necessarily creates the conditions under which torture can be used with impunity against anyone for any reason.

 

[Bram Turismo]

A member of your family is kidnapped and being hidden in a location known only to the kidnapper. In seven days your family member will die unless the kidnapper discloses the location. You call the Police and they interrogate the kidnapper. He says he will never let you know where they are. The only option is for the Police to use torture methods to get him to reveal the location.

Why would he say if you tortured him and not through interrogation? The problem with some posts I have is as if terrorists would say nothing to the police or investigations, even when under some serious press by serious evidence against the suspect, and then under torture methods they would suddenly give away all hidden information. I think many of us are overestimating our ability to keep silence under pressure when interrogated, especially when the evidence against you is really hard. As others have pointed out as well, a rock solid investigation and detective work would take less time than any torture, any day.

 

[Danoff]

by sanctioning the use of torture at all, you are tacitly condoning all potential injustices and abuses of power before the fact.

I don't follow you in the slightest. Let's take the example of prison. Sometimes guards abuse prisoners. By sanctioning the removal of the prisoner's freedom are we tacitly condoning any and all potential abuses by guards? Absolutely not.

Saying it's OK for the US or the UK to do it to terrorist but it's not OK for the terrorist organisations to do it to US or UK soldiers doesn't make any sense.

It certainly could. It depends on the scenario. In some instances, perhaps someone from the US has committed some injustice that warrants torture. In other instances, perhaps an Al Qaeda leader has committed some injustice that warrants torture.

The scenario you painted is one in which you assume that both sides of a conflict are innocent, and so neither side is just in violating the other's rights. In reality we do not have that situation. If someone breaks into my house and points a gun at me an I shoot him - you can't tell me that he would have been just as legitimate in shooting me. He violated my rights, I protected them with lethal force. That's justice. I didn't violate his rights, he violated mine - thereby forfeiting his.

Similarly, Al Qaeda leaders are responsible for the intentional muder of thousands of Americans who in no way violated their rights. To say that US soldiers can be tortured as legitimately as an Al Qaeda leader is to say that the guy who broke into my house has just as much right to shoot me as I do him.

My problem with condoning torture in "ticking bomb" scenarios in real-life is that it is often alot less clear cut that the "guilty" parties are really guilty at all (Jean Charles De Menezes springs to mind) but merely presumed guilty (either directly or by association).

This is not a problem with torture per-se, but rather a problem with the evidence required. I see no problem with requiring a decent amount of evidence before pronouncing even an enemy combatant sufficiently guilty to warrant torture.

 

[Touring Mars]

Let's take the example of prison. Sometimes guards abuse prisoners. By sanctioning the removal of the prisoner's freedom are we tacitly condoning any and all potential abuses by guards? Absolutely not.

However, by telling prison guards that they will not be punished for abusing prisoners, you would be tacitly condoning any abuses perpetrated by those guards, and even potentially encouraging such abuses in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

However, by telling prison guards that they will not be punished for abusing prisoners, you would be tacitly condoning any some abuses perpetrated by those guards, and even potentially encouraging such abuses in the first place.

Oh, absolutely. That's completely correct (with my fix in place). But this statement:

by sanctioning the use of torture at all, you are tacitly condoning all potential injustices and abuses of power before the fact.

...doesn't follow from that. Saying that it's ok to torture a mass murderer doesn't tacitly condone pronouncing an innocent man a mass murderer for the purpose of torturing him.