Is torture ever acceptable?

LFCFan

There's also the use of torture as a form of punishment! Can this ever be acceptable? Again, this depends on who, why, what, where and when! If someone had brutally killed a loved one in cold blood I'm sure a lot of people would like to spend a few hours alone with the murderer with a blowtorch and some pliers. State sponsored punishment by torture would be a no no though. Saying this though, criminals are treated too well these days :rolleyes:

Sparks

I'm getting tired of hearing this reason...

And I'm getting tired of people thinking that "24" was a documentary program.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

I'm getting tired of hearing this reason... :rolleyes:

Just assume for a second the person does know, or is directly affiliated to the group responsible.

and how exactly do you know this? It is a valid reason. Lets say picking a real life example, the cops arrest the wrong person (eg. go to the wrong house, or take the father instead of the son).

After torturing them, and realising your mistake do you think that to do it again is justified? How many times getting it wrong make it acceptable?

and how exactly do you know this? It is a valid reason. Lets say picking a real life example, the cops arrest the wrong person (eg. go to the wrong house, or take the father instead of the son).

Hobbes, think of what i said at the start. Exceptional circumstances..... Understand what i mean?

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

I'm getting tired of hearing this reason... :rolleyes:
Just assume for a second the person does know, or is directly affiliated to the group responsible.

Ok I'll assume - just like you, but will my assumption prove correct? I mean he looked like a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

Don't you think the use of always is completely off the mark? Perhaps there might be a miscarrage of justice...?

Nope, not at all. There is ALWAYS a miscarrage of justice. Show me one society; one police force; one judical system that hasn't made a mistake. Once people are running the show - it's open to mistakes. So I'll repeat for effect:

There is always a miscarrage of justice.

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

Hobbes, think of what i said at the start. Exceptional circumstances..... Understand what i mean?

Define "Exceptional circumstances". There was cold water in my shower this morning - exceptional circumstances????
.....Understand what we mean?

:rolleyes:

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

:rolleyes:

What a killer come back. Evidently I'm wrong and you're right. How could I be so foolish.


note to self: use rolleyes as killer blow to all arguments







Ooohhh a sarcasm machine. I can see that being really useful.

gandalf

Yes define exception circumstances?

sorry couldn't find the exasperation icon.

Yes define exceptional circumstances?

How would you define it, since you want it clarified?

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

sorry couldn't find the exasperation icon.

How would you define it, since you want it clarified?

Well it's hard, isn't it? It comes down to perspective. Which is why torture is acceptable, even in "exceptional circumstances".

I shouldn't bother pointing out that, if we could define it for you - we wouldn't require it clarified.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exceptional

ex·cep·tion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spsh-nl)
adj.
Being an exception; uncommon.
Well above average; extraordinary: an exceptional memory. See Usage Note at exceptionable.


exceptional

adj 1: far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree; "a night of exceeding darkness"; "an exceptional memory"; "olympian efforts to save the city from bankruptcy"; "the young Mozart's prodigious talents" [syn: exceeding, olympian, prodigious, surpassing] 2: surpassing what is common or usual or expected; "he paid especial attention to her"; "exceptional kindness"; "a matter of particular and unusual importance"; "a special occasion"; "a special reason to confide in her"; "what's so special about the year 2000?" [syn: especial(a), particular(a), special]

gandalf

Err your the one saying that under exceptional circumstances torture should be allowed. I'm asking you to expand on that.

Lets say your writing a manual on how the intelligence services operate. How would you define exceptional circumstances with regard to allowing torture in that context (now can you comprehend this or are you going to respond with general dictionary definitions and avoid answering again :rolleyes:)

Just me or everyone else thats said exceptional circumstances?

and providing the dictionary explanation is not avoiding the issue. The words in bold describe what i meant. Oh you mean 1001 scenarios? No, sorry. Don't have those examples for you...

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

How would you define it, since you want it clarified?

Surely they want it clarified with reference to when it would qualify torture. Thus, their own definition of what constitutes exceptional circumstances is worthless - it is your definition, coupled with your belief that once this threshold is reached, torture (which, in fairness, should also be qualified) becomes an acceptable policy.

Personally, I don't support torture, mostly for three reasons.

The first is that I believe we - as a society - would not accept one of our own being tortured by another government or NGO for purposes that they said met their definition of exceptional circumstances. Now, if thats the case, then it stands to reason that another government or NGO will not accept our government doing likewise. We saw this in both Afghanistan and Iraq regarding the Geneva Conventions - both sides said the other was not adhering to the agreement and that - as a result - they themselves should not be held to it. Now, that seems to be what is called a positive feedback loop to me, and it is generally only ever broken when one side says "enough - we will not do this, regardless of what you do.

Its a bit like assassination. With the exception of Israel, I cannot think of any state which considers political assassination to be an acceptable tool to use. Why? Because once someone starts using it, everyone has to use it or be disadvantaged. And regardless of where you set the bar in terms of "when is it acceptable", that decision is always going to be taken by those who want to get the information - somewhat of a conflict of interest.

And this "once one, then everyone" (and yes, I know about the dangers of a slippery slope argument) which gives me further pause - my second reason. Sure we can define "exceptional circumstances", but how do we keep things there. The simple fact is that no matter where we set a bar, once it is not at an absolute position (all or nothing), someone will complain that it is too high, and others that it is too low. My fear is that once torture became accepted for "exceptional" cases, what classifies as "exceptional" would start to be eroded.

The best example I can think of, was everyone's favourite world leader saying that while torture was against everything the US stood for as a people and a nation, he couldn't see the problem with handing prisoners over to another country who had a less stringent set of standards. So, apparently, for the Dubyas of this world, being against torture (and he left no doubt. He - and the rest of America - is emphatically against torture) means handing people to others to torture, as opposed to getting it done yourself.

And while both of the above are more concerns than solid proveable reasons to oppose the thing, the third one - for me - seals the deal. Its a point which has already been heard. Torture makes someone tell you what you want to hear. No more, no less. It may be true, and it may be fiction.

Sure, we can define exceptioal circumstances as "we know that he knows, and we need to know"....but exactly what does that cover. We apparently all knew that Saddam had - or was on the brink of having - nuclear weapons. Imagine the torture we could have put people through in order to hear all about those non-existant programs. Hell, it was people lying to the Intelligence community which brought that whole crap about in the first place.

Look at the detainees of Gitmo - the really bad men of whom none have been convicted and dozens released as innocent. Would they not have qualified as "exceptional circumstances" when the US was hunting first for Osama then for Saddam?

Torture offers no certainty. If and when a certain method can be found, I'll re-consider my position. For now, I see too much being risked for too little of certain value.

jc

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

Just me or everyone else thats said exceptional circumstances?

and providing the dictionary explanation is not avoiding the issue. The words in bold describe what i meant. Oh you mean 1001 scenarios? No, sorry. Don't have those examples for you...

Quoting the dictionary is a little condescending (con·de·scend·ing adj. : Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude)

, particularly when your attempting to avoid a question. Your argument would carry more weight if you just said nothing.

The point we are trying to make:
Yes list you 1001 scenarios. Will that be the definite list? Nothing else can constitute torture? Or will there be floating phrases, that can be interpreted? Once you open the floodgates to torture, you're entering a world of pain.

Its funny. I don't advocate regular use of torture except in exceptional, unique, odd, specialist circumstances, and I gave an example in the case of the nuke. However, I haven't asked you to list every scenario when it wouldn't be acceptable to use torture....

Zulu. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I answered the question at the start of the thread, just as other people used exceptional circumstances as a reason. Odd that you want to argue it that much...

As for quoting the dictionary, sure it is. I've often seen posters quote the dictionary when asked what they meant, because its obvious what they and I meant.

Gurgle

There was a movie out a few years ago where this guy kidnaps women, keeps them in the basement, rapes & tortures them to death. He has several at any time, replacing them as they die.

Anyway, he is tracked down & caught red handed but there are a few women unaccounted for. He bargains their lives for a complete pardon. Of course he moves on to a new location & starts again.

I thought the plot was entirely unrealistic as, under those exceptional circumstances, who wouldn't have a go with a collection of hot and pointy things ?

- ps the USA invading other countries to rob their resources is not exceptional circumstances

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

Its funny. I don't advocate regular use of torture except in exceptional, unique, odd, specialist circumstances, and I gave an example in the case of the nuke.

Ok a nuke - what about a chemical weapon? Does a dirty bomb constitute a nuke? What about a really,really, big bomb?

Deleted User wrote:

However, I haven't asked you to list every scenario when it wouldn't be acceptable to use torture.....

No need to ask. I've already listed them all. Wanna see the list again.
Zulu's list of acceptable torture circumstances:
1) Never is it acceptable.

Deleted User wrote:

Zulu. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I answered the question at the start of the thread, just as other people used exceptional circumstances as a reason. Odd that you want to argue it that much...

Welcome to the boards. I've time to kill; I'm looking for a good debate. I wouldn't consider it odd - look around.

Deleted User wrote:

As for quoting the dictionary, sure it is. I've often seen posters quote the dictionary when asked what they meant, because its obvious what they and I meant.

Indeed, I was obvious, but we're highlighting that you are being very vague.

Zulu

Gurgle wrote:

There was a movie out a few years ago where this guy kidnaps women, keeps them in the basement, rapes & tortures them to death. He has several at any time, replacing them as they die.

Anyway, he is tracked down & caught red handed but there are a few women unaccounted for. He bargains their lives for a complete pardon. Of course he moves on to a new location & starts again.

I thought the plot was entirely unrealistic as, under those exceptional circumstances, who wouldn't have a go with a collection of hot and pointy things ?

- ps the USA invading other countries to rob their resources is not exceptional circumstances

The movie was Kiss the Girls (wasn't it?). If the police torture the suspect, the evidence is unacceptable and the suspect will walk. The reason this isn't acceptable as an exceptional circumstance is because the police get things wrong. Imagine what the english police would have done to the Gilford 4 or the Birmingham 6 if they had been allow to torture IRA suspects?

Nuttzz

its only acceptable if it used to purge the soul of the devil or get heretics to renounce their ways :rolleyes:

whats with the daft polls lately, me thinks the hot weather is getting to some people

whosurpaddy

Deleted User wrote:

ionapaul - do you include the use of chemicals as being part of torture. i.e. truth serums, that will make the person tell the truth, but leave them a wreck afterwards?

does this exist? sounds a bit sci-fi?

chill

bonkey wrote:

Torture offers no certainty. If and when a certain method can be found, I'll re-consider my position. For now, I see too much being risked for too little of certain value.

Great post.

Any reading of military experience of torture and the results therefrom shows that torture produces almost NO valuable or usable inteligence because the amount of lies and trash that tortured people produce far outways real usable information. So torture is almost value less anyway.

I am VERY strongly against torture of any kind but having thought about this... 'exceptional' suggestion... I can only think of one possible exceptional circumstance.....and that is where serious loss of life is 'IMMINENT'. Imminent in this case would mean ' about to occurr within a very short space of time'..... and the person being interrogated is known to know the information in question and the accuracy can be acertained almost immediately. And even then I would only consider beating the **** out of someone... not serious torture....

Even then I am sceptical if this could ever be implemented in a fair or just manner.

And on the subject of handing someone over to known torturers.... I suggest that this action is equivalent to applying the torture oneself.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Its funny. I don't advocate regular use of torture except in exceptional, unique, odd, specialist circumstances, and I gave an example in the case of the nuke

So as mentioned, by your defination it would of been ok for the US to torture people to find out about Saddams Nukes, because as I said, Bush claimed that Saddam had them.

So in that instance it would be ok?

Moriarty

If torture doesn't work, how come so many people and organisations have used it for so long? You'd think that a millenias-old technique that didn't work would have been phased out by now..

Or is it that it's a lot easier to dismiss torture if you assert that it doesn't work, thereby handily avoiding having to ask any hard questions of yourself?

Zulu

Moriarty wrote:

a millenias-old technique

The world was flat for millenias; women were second class citizens for centuarys. Age dosen't prove it correct.


...no, wait, all them witches, must have been brides of satan so...

Moriarty

Hello mister straw. Nice weather we're having today isn't it?

ionapaul

Moriarty wrote:

If torture doesn't work, how come so many people and organisations have used it for so long? You'd think that a millenias-old technique that didn't work would have been phased out by now..

Or is it that it's a lot easier to dismiss torture if you assert that it doesn't work, thereby handily avoiding having to ask any hard questions of yourself?

Well, torture works, but that is not the heart of the debate, is it?

The main question as I see it: even if it will save lives, is it acceptable for the State to torture?

Leave aside the 'system has mistakes' argument for a minute - if we go down that road sooner or later almost every system becomes suspect and therefore unacceptable to some.

Moriarty

ionapaul wrote:

Well, torture works, but that is not the heart of the debate, is it?

Indeed it's not, but some here were trying to make it so anyway.

ionapaul wrote:

The main question as I see it: even if it will save lives, is it acceptable for the State to torture?

Leave aside the 'system has mistakes' argument for a minute - if we go down that road sooner or later almost every system becomes suspect and therefore unacceptable to some.

Well, to start off with we need to all agree on what torture is. For instance, I suspect that I could list off a few things here that most people - including myself - wouldn't consider torture (sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc) but others here will say it is. Any dictionary I can find defines torture as the infliction of severe or excruciating pain for the purpose of punishment or coercion, so let's go by that.

One of the problems with allowing a government to torture people is that if the people agree that certain methods or types of torture are beyond the pale, the people being interrogated will also know this. They'll know that some threats would be hollow, negating the entire exercise to a certain extent before it's even started. On the other hand, if there are no limits on what can be done to somone we have the obvious problem of people (perhaps entirely innocent) being seriously injured and killed.

So.. what do you do?

I'd edge towards a system of torture that was strictly enforced and monitored, to be used when it was thought that it could be useful or necessary. No permenant damage would be allowed to be inflicted on the person. There would be an independant complaints board that could be used by people if they could show that a miscarrige of justice had occoured with stiff penalties to the security forces and the specific people involved in ordering the interrogations if the complaint was found to have merit.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

If torture doesn't work, how come so many people and organisations have used it for so long?

You torture a person long enough they will tell you anything you want to hear. Might not be the truth but it will be what you want to hear.

Well, to start off with we need to all agree on what torture is. For instance, I suspect that I could list off a few things here that most people - including myself - wouldn't consider torture (sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc) but others here will say it is.

Go read up on internment. They did such things and people were psychologically damaged from it.

Torture is already clearly defined...
http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/tort_faq.html

In the Convention Against Torture of 1984, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."