Is torture ever acceptable?

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

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.

Has aldi had a 50% reduction on straw men this week or something?

Hobbes wrote:

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

So? They can be applied without causing permenant damage to people.

Hobbes wrote:

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

Intresting that there are only 25 signatories for that convention.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Has aldi had a 50% reduction on straw men this week or something?

Prehaps you need to go look up exactly what a strawman argument actually is.

So? They can be applied without causing permenant damage to people.

Can you cite proof of that?

Intresting that there are only 25 signatories for that convention.

Your point being?

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Prehaps you need to go look up exactly what a strawman argument actually is.

You claim that all information recieved through torture is useless, which obviously isn't true. You go on to claim that since all the information attained is useless, torture is pointless.

Straw man argument against torture.

Hobbes wrote:

Can you cite proof of that?

Sure. Go stand facing a wall. Put your hands on the wall and move your feet back. Spread your feet. Continue to move back until most of your bodys weight is on your arms. Keep your head up. Stand like that for thirty minutes to an hour. Hey presto, a stress position. You will also find - amazingly enough - that you won't be emotionally scarred for the rest of your life because of it.

Hobbes wrote:

Your point being?

.. that maybe the definition of torture that you claim is 'clearly defined' may not infact agree with what the majority of nations think the word torture means.

Gurgle

Zulu wrote:

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?

Can't remember if that was the movie but:
1. You've comprehensively missed the point.
2. The evidence gained through torture would be unacceptable in court, it could still be used to find the missing girls.
3. The evidence of finding the guy in the house with the girls would not be compromised, or evidence given by the girls.
4. Gilford 4 / Birmingham 6 - Relevant to my point how ?
5. Thanks for the negative reputation points.

I didn't at any time advocate torture to obtain legal evidence. I'm not saying it should be policy. I'm saying that there could be exceptional circumstances where it could be neccessary.

The question used the word 'ever'.
Never say never.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

You claim that all information recieved through torture is useless, which obviously isn't true.

No I said you torture a person long enough and they will tell you want you want to hear. Learn to read.

So you torture someone to find out about say a nuke and they say "There is no nuke". Do you continue to torture them or accept the answer?

Then when they are near death, or hours of torture you realise they are telling the truth.. what then? Whoops sorry pal.

Torture isn't acceptable both on moral and a method to gain intelligence. Good example, the so called "Dirty Bomb" expected in USA which never existed was from intel tortured from a gitmo prisoner.

Hey presto, a stress position. You will also find - amazingly enough - that you won't be emotionally scarred for the rest of your life because of it.

Like I said.. go read up on internment. They did they such a thing. At least one person afair went into a mental institution after a few hours of it.

Everyone is basing the argument that "Hey they have been arrested, he must be a criminal so torture is ok".

.. that maybe the definition of torture that you claim is 'clearly defined' may not infact agree with what the majority of nations think the word torture means.

So your argument is that because other countries think Torture is a good thing that it is ok?

Gurgle

Hobbes wrote:

Everyone is basing the argument that "Hey they have been arrested, he must be a criminal so torture is ok".

I didn't say that.
I don't remember anyone else saying it either but I'm way too lazy to re-read the rest of the thread to check.

Zulu

Gurgle wrote:

Can't remember if that was the movie but:
1. You've comprehensively missed the point.

I didn't - I just pointed out that in real life, this isn't a very valid solution.

Gurgle wrote:

2. The evidence gained through torture would be unacceptable in court, it could still be used to find the missing girls.

Indeed it could - provided the information was correct. But perhaps the sicko involved would give the wrong information. Then what? You go back and torture again. You get more incorrect information... etc. Plus, he would walk afterwards.

Gurgle wrote:

3. The evidence of finding the guy in the house with the girls would not be compromised, or evidence given by the girls.

Let me get this straight. Your saying that the Gardai can torture a prisoner - so long as they have another form of evidence, the prisoner can still be convicted. I was under the impression the arrests had to be by the book. (ie: no torture)

Gurgle wrote:

4. Gilford 4 / Birmingham 6 - Relevant to my point how ?

Both groups were found to be innocent. The police at the time - had torture been legal - would have tortured the hell out of them (knowing the contempt the then police had for Irish/Ira suspects), attempting to find out IRA information. What would they have found out?

Gurgle wrote:

5. Thanks for the negative reputation points.

I didn't give you ANY reputation points. :rolleyes: ...but thanks for the accusation. Perhaps you could torture information out of me to the contrary?

Gurgle wrote:

I didn't at any time advocate torture to obtain legal evidence. I'm not saying it should be policy. I'm saying that there could be exceptional circumstances where it could be neccessary.

The question used the word 'ever'.
Never say never.

Once your prepared to do it once....

Zulu

Moriarty wrote:

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

:rolleyes: care to back that up? ...or are you in the business of debunking arguments by using fancy terms others mighn't know?

Hobbes

Gurgle wrote:

I didn't say that.
I don't remember anyone else saying it either but I'm way too lazy to re-read the rest of the thread to check.

No but they are saying "It is ok to torture if you need to, like find out where a nuke is, or a child is kidnapped". So they are automatically assuming that the person to be tortured is already guilty... or maybe they mean you can torture anyone to find out.

Sparks

Zulu wrote:

Both groups were found to be innocent. The police at the time - had torture been legal - would have tortured the hell out of them (knowing the contempt the then police had for Irish/Ira suspects), attempting to find out IRA information. What would they have found out?

Torture was used, just not of the break-his-fingers-with-a-hammer variety. That how the confessions were forced, and that's why they spent a large portion of their lives in prison.

Zulu

Sparks wrote:

Torture was used, just not of the break-his-fingers-with-a-hammer variety. That how the confessions were forced, and that's why they spent a large portion of their lives in prison.

That is certainly true. But it wasn't legal at the time to torture - so I imagine that there would have been a certain amount of restraint practiced. Imagine if torture was legal at the time. The electrodes and the steel wool would have been out.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

No I said you torture a person long enough and they will tell you want you want to hear. Learn to read.

From what you said, I inferred that you were trying to rubbish the entire process of interrogation and torture by saying that no information recieved under these circumstances is useful. Did I misunderstand you, or is that what you believe?

Hobbes wrote:

So you torture someone to find out about say a nuke and they say "There is no nuke". Do you continue to torture them or accept the answer?

You'd check whether they were telling the truth. If they aren't, you continue. No matter what they said, you'd check to see if it makes sense with the wider picture and if you can confirm any parts of it from other sources. That's what interrogation is for.

Hobbes wrote:

Then when they are near death, or hours of torture you realise they are telling the truth.. what then? Whoops sorry pal.

Well they wouldn't be near death in the system I outlined above. The idea of the independant board to monitor torture would be to deter exactly this sort of thing. The people ordering the interrogation and torture would want to be pretty sure that they're doing it for the right reasons, or their necks would be on the line.

Hobbes wrote:

Torture isn't acceptable both on moral and a method to gain intelligence. Good example, the so called "Dirty Bomb" expected in USA which never existed was from intel tortured from a gitmo prisoner.

Whatever about the morality of it, it is a useful tool for extracting intelligence. Your example just shows that it's not a catch-all solution, it needs to be used for specific reasons and purposes and only under proper oversight.

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said.. go read up on internment. They did they such a thing. At least one person afair went into a mental institution after a few hours of it.

I know about internment, I haven't lived in a cave for the best part of my life. They carried out interrogations and torture in a haphazard, unmonitored and indiscriminate manner which made it almost useless. It does not mean that the technique itself is flawed, only that the implentation of it used there was.

Hobbes wrote:

Everyone is basing the argument that "Hey they have been arrested, he must be a criminal so torture is ok".

Which everyone? I haven't anyway.

Hobbes wrote:

So your argument is that because other countries think Torture is a good thing that it is ok?

Did I say that? No I didn't.

Zulu wrote:

:rolleyes: care to back that up? ...or are you in the business of debunking arguments by using fancy terms others mighn't know?

Zulu wrote:

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...

...

Oh and that rolleyes smiley should be banned from the politics board. People seem to resort to it every second post.

mycroft

Well they wouldn't be near death in the system I outlined above. The idea of the independant board to monitor torture would be to deter exactly this sort of thing. The people ordering the interrogation and torture would want to be pretty sure that they're doing it for the right reasons, or their necks would be on the line.

This is possibly one of the most naive worldviews I've ever heard. It shows that you not little or nothing about the effectivness and psychology of torture.

Torture works due to the absensce of hope and escape. You are put in a position where you are psychological starved of information, time becomes meaningless, and all you know is your interrogators, the illusion or reality that you are totally at the mercy of your captors and co-operation is the only way to escape this physcial or mental torment.

The creation of a independent board would shatter that illusion a harden terrorist aware that his captors can only do so much for so long because of this independent board would have a release, knowing that it can't go on forever. Gitmo works because the prisoners have no idea how long they'll be there. Your point of view is beyond ludricous. Just out of curiousity how far would you allow torture to go?

k whether they were telling the truth. If they aren't, you continue. No matter what they said, you'd check to see if it makes sense with the wider picture and if you can confirm any parts of it from other sources. That's what interrogation is for.

Thats farcial. What if the information isn't easily confirmed?? Troop movements in afganistan, or a potential threat? Do you condone torture to gain a confession?

It does not mean that the technique itself is flawed, only that the implentation of it used there was.

I find your opinion morally repugnant and hopelessly naive. We're supposed to be a enlightened society, by debasing ourselves by using torture you're arguing that causing physical and emotional torment is morally justified......

Moriarty

mycroft wrote:

The creation of a independent board would shatter that illusion a harden terrorist aware that his captors can only do so much for so long because of this independent board would have a release, knowing that it can't go on forever.

Who said it couldn't go on forever? The board would be there to see what's going on and to make sure the likes of random internment wasn't occouring. Oversight, not mollycuddling.

mycroft wrote:

Just out of curiousity how far would you allow torture to go?

As I said earlier.. no permenant damage. No gouging out their eyes, no lopping off fingers, no smashing hands or feet to such an extent that they'll forever more be useless.

mycroft wrote:

Thats farcial. What if the information isn't easily confirmed??

Then you keep them until you either (a) can confirm it or (b) have no further use for the person.

mycroft wrote:

Do you condone torture to gain a confession?

No, because it's pointless.

mycroft wrote:

We're supposed to be a enlightened society, by debasing ourselves by using torture you're arguing that causing physical and emotional torment is morally justified......

We've never been an enlightened society. We sometimes talk the talk when it suits us, but that's about the extent of it. Do you think war is a happy go lucky walk in the park without physical or emotional torment? Normal people go to war - and will contine to for as long as I can see - and cause massive physical and emotional torment. Physical and emotional torment is around us every single day.

Thinking that we're "beyond all that" is the ultimate in naivety my friend.

Zulu

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..

My so called straw man argument was a valid point highlighting who nieve this argument was. Because a technique has been used for "millenia" dosen't make it correct. Hardly a straw-man argument.

Zulu

Moriarty wrote:

As I said earlier.. no permenant damage. No gouging out their eyes, no lopping off fingers, no smashing hands or feet to such an extent that they'll forever more be useless.

And what would you do with people with heart conditions? Would you run the risk of torturing them? They could die - thats pretty permenant.

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

As I said earlier.. no permenant damage. No gouging out their eyes, no lopping off fingers, no smashing hands or feet to such an extent that they'll forever more be useless.

I take it that you don't believe in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome any more than you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" then?

Moriarty

Zulu wrote:

My so called straw man argument was a valid point highlighting who nieve this argument was. Because a technique has been used for "millenia" dosen't make it correct. Hardly a straw-man argument.

It hasn't just been used, it's been proven to work time and time again, over millenia.

What you try to compare torture to (the world being flat, blahblahblah) is at best totally irrelevant.

Zulu wrote:

And what would you do with people with heart conditions? Would you run the risk of torturing them? They could die - thats pretty permenant.

I have no intention of trying to create a waterproof model for state use of torture here, I'm simply trying to explain the general point of view.

Sparks wrote:

I take it that you don't believe in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome any more than you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" then?

Where have I said that I don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Oh right, I never did. I see. So will you have any problems with me saying that you fully support(ed) Sadham Hussein then? No? Good.

Pfffff..

Zulu

Moriarty wrote:

It hasn't just been used, it's been proven to work time and time again, over millenia.
What you try to compare torture to (the world being flat, blahblahblah) is at best totally irrelevant.

Pish-posh. You claim that torture has been proved to work on the basis that it has been used for a long period of time.
I have pointed out that this is no proof; that human perception was that the earth was flat for a long period of time. It was until relatively reciently that the earth was proven to be round. Likewise with torture, reciently it's becomming understood that confessions and information obtained under torture aren't reliable.

Moriarty wrote:

Where have I said that I don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Oh right, I never did. I see.

No but you advocate torture to obtain information. How do you know the person has the information? You've highlighted the time would be a factor in the case for torture, so evidently you aren't going to wait to go to court and find someone guilty before torturing them.

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

Where have I said that I don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

That would be the part where you dove right into the argument for using torture where it would be "useful or necessary", then said that you'd advocate a system that allowed innocent people who were tortured to charge their torturers - a system which would encourage one of two things:
1) An increase in the mortality rate for tortured people ("whoops boss, me hand slipped right after we figured he wasn't the John Smith we were trying to arrest");
2) An increase in the number of people who are tortured into self-incriminating confessions ("What do you mean you're innocent, you said you'd done it, right after I tore off the seventh fingernail!").

In effect, it's similar to the dunking test for witches - your innocence is irrelevant once you're involved, the only important factor becomes surviving.

It is somewhat touching to see that you've not lost faith in state institutions though, despite all the evidence pointing out that that faith is severely misplaced...

Moriarty

Zulu wrote:

Pish-posh. You claim that torture has been proved to work on the basis that it has been used for a long period of time.

No I haven't. I claim that torture has been proven to work because of the countless times that it has been documented to have done just that - work.

Zulu wrote:

Likewise with torture, reciently it's becomming understood that confessions and information obtained under torture aren't reliable.

Recently? You're having a laugh right? It's been known - very probably since a few days after the first time a person was ever tortured - that information obtained under torture isn't necessarly reliable. That is not the same as information being obtained under torture being useless or pointless.

Zulu wrote:

No but you advocate torture to obtain information. How do you know the person has the information?

There could be a similar system to the current one that's in place for the likes of warrants and phone taps, where you need enough evidence to convince a judge of the necessity.

Zulu wrote:

You've highlighted the time would be a factor in the case for torture, so evidently you aren't going to wait to go to court and find someone guilty before torturing them.

I never mentioned time being a factor, you must be confusing me with somebody else.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

From what you said, I inferred that you were trying to rubbish the entire process of interrogation and torture by saying that no information recieved under these circumstances is useful. Did I misunderstand you, or is that what you believe?

You misunderstood me. As I said "They may or may not tell you the truth, but they will tell you what you want to hear". Clear now?

You'd check whether they were telling the truth. If they aren't, you continue.

How do you check? You think there is a nuke, you say "Tell me", they say "there is no nuke". Then what? Continue to torture them.

Well they wouldn't be near death in the system I outlined above.

Like I said go read up on torture, especially relating to what you suggested. I gave you a link which describe such the kind of torture you describe.

Whatever about the morality of it, it is a useful tool for extracting intelligence. Your example just shows that it's not a catch-all solution,

If it is not a catch-all solution it is not a solution.

I haven't lived in a cave for the best part of my life. They carried out interrogations and torture in a haphazard, unmonitored and indiscriminate manner which made it almost useless. It does not mean that the technique itself is flawed, only that the implentation of it used there was.

However there were a number of factors leading up to the torture which everyone seems to skip over. In the example I linked people were arrested because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had a similar name, or the father was arrested instead of the son. They then proceeded to torture them over a long period of time to try and extract information. Because a lot of them couldn't give any the torture continued.

Your ideal only works if you have caught a guilty person to begin with, which is rarely the case.

Which everyone? I haven't anyway.

So you were implying instead that torture on people regardless if they are guilty or not is acceptable? Because that isn't what I was reading from what people have posted so far.

No, because it's pointless.

Your contridicting youself now. If torturing to get a confession is pointless, then why torturing to get information is useful? Are they not the same thing? Or can you cite me an example where this is not the case.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

You misunderstood me. As I said "They may or may not tell you the truth, but they will tell you what you want to hear". Clear now?

Clear. That isn't always true though - for a lot of things, if you didn't know what they were talking about to start with, you wouldn't be able to give any sort of an answer that would make sense to them if you were just trying to make stuff up..

Hobbes wrote:

How do you check? You think there is a nuke, you say "Tell me", they say "there is no nuke". Then what? Continue to torture them.

No, then you get them to explain how/why they did X, Y and Z that attracted attention to them in the first place.

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said go read up on torture, especially relating to what you suggested. I gave you a link which describe such the kind of torture you describe.

It's not the type of torture I describe. The link you gave is about a bunch of soldiers and ruc that beat the living shít out of the guy. That isn't necessarly what torture is about. After all, what's the point in interrogating somone if they can't even reply to your questions?

Hobbes wrote:

If it is not a catch-all solution it is not a solution.

What? Seriously, what?

Hobbes wrote:

However there were a number of factors leading up to the torture which everyone seems to skip over. In the example I linked people were arrested because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had a similar name, or the father was arrested instead of the son. They then proceeded to torture them over a long period of time to try and extract information. Because a lot of them couldn't give any the torture continued.

Read my posts from earlier today, the idea of some sort of overwatch system is to stop that kind of thing. Torture/interrogation and picking random people up off the street don't go hand in hand.

Hobbes wrote:

Your ideal only works if you have caught a guilty person to begin with, which is rarely the case.

Guilty people are rarely caught now?

Hobbes wrote:

So you were implying instead that torture on people regardless if they are guilty or not is acceptable? Because that isn't what I was reading from what people have posted so far.

When have I said that torturing innocent people is acceptable?

Hobbes wrote:

Your contridicting youself now. If torturing to get a confession is pointless, then why torturing to get information is useful? Are they not the same thing? Or can you cite me an example where this is not the case.

I'm not contradicting myself. Going into an interrogation/torturing somone when you already know the specific answers that you want out of it is a pointless exercise - eg. torturing people until they confess. No one would be bothered to torture somone for information if they already knew all the information there was to know. Isn't that blindingly obvious, or have I missed something?

Gurgle

Zulu wrote:

Let me get this straight. Your saying that the Gardai can torture a prisoner - so long as they have another form of evidence, the prisoner can still be convicted. I was under the impression the arrests had to be by the book. (ie: no torture)

I can't find where I said anything like that.

Zulu wrote:

Plus, he would walk afterwards.

huh ?

Zulu wrote:

Both groups were found to be innocent. The police at the time - had torture been legal - would have tortured the hell out of them (knowing the contempt the then police had for Irish/Ira suspects), attempting to find out IRA information. What would they have found out?

Good thing torture wasn't (and isn't) legal. Does someone want to make torture legal ? Not me!
Laws can be broken by someone prepared to accept the consequences.
Severe consequences - Exceptional reason - Exceptional circumstances

Zulu wrote:

Once your prepared to do it once....

Ever....exceptional....

Stabshauptmann

For those that say it works, yes it does, thats whats wrong, it works too well. People will confess to anything, tell you anything but that wont make it true.

In the example of the person with only hours to live and you need the info, maybe negotiation would work as well. Offer amnesty and a huge randsom. Would that be acceptable? You'd feel it totally injust perhaps.

That ppl are drawing lines between mental and physical torture baffles me.

Carpo

Moriarty wrote:

Clear. That isn't always true though - for a lot of things, if you didn't know what they were talking about to start with, you wouldn't be able to give any sort of an answer that would make sense to them if you were just trying to make stuff up..

So how is the torturer to know that they are telling the truth and not just playing dumb exactly? Other then by torturing them some more of coruse. In the exmple, the guy says 'There is no nuke' how can you tell that he is telling the truth, other than just assuming that nobody could be subjected to such torture and still lie? Clearly if he knows nothing about the nuke hes not going to claim 'there is no nuke hidden in a flat at 12 main st, Co Dublin'. In other words how can you prove a negative?

Moriarty wrote:

No, then you get them to explain how/why they did X, Y and Z that attracted attention to them in the first place.

Great. Now the torturee has to prove thier innocence too?? 'Why were you turned in by Northern Alliance members who recieved a cash reward for doing it?' I'm sure is a popular question in Gitmo. And again, why exactly are you going to believe thier explanations?

Moriarty wrote:

When have I said that torturing innocent people is acceptable?

You said it just a moment ago when you would get them to explain thier actions that 'attracted attention'. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or is suspicion enough now?

Moriarty wrote:

No one would be bothered to torture somone for information if they already knew all the information there was to know. Isn't that blindingly obvious, or have I missed something?

So its only a wothwhile activity if you dont know the answer. If you dont, at least suspect the answer how do you know what questions to ask? As I said above, if the answer is negative how can you prove it?

Moriarty wrote:

Sure. Go stand facing a wall. Put your hands on the wall and move your feet back. Spread your feet. Continue to move back until most of your bodys weight is on your arms. Keep your head up. Stand like that for thirty minutes to an hour. Hey presto, a stress position. You will also find - amazingly enough - that you won't be emotionally scarred for the rest of your life because of it.

I just wanted to go back to this point for a moment. I read it and thought, 'hey, that doesnt sound too bad'. But then I thought, well what if the prisoner, just point blank refuses to lean against the wall. What happens then? Is he just brought back to his cell? Or is there a little 'incentive' given? Y'know, gun in the mouth, threatening a beating, denial of food that kind of stuff. Or is he just hadcuffed into place until such a time as the torturer descides he would have spoken up by now?

I remeber seeing a picture of from Abu Girab of one of the prisoners. Sure all they made him do was stand on a box with a hood over his head! Seems like a pretty soft touch to me. After all its not like the wires he was told were going to electrocute him were even connected!

In short, 'stress positions' are not so sanitary as you describe above.

AngelofFire

Torture was one of the reasons why i joined amnesty international, it is a draconian and disgusting practise,which has its roots in nazism. The US soldiers who inflicted torture at abu ghraib deserve to be charged with warcrimes.Rumsfeld should also be made to step down from office.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

No, then you get them to explain how/why they did X, Y and Z that attracted attention to them in the first place.

And they still don't have an answer? Then what? If you aren't going to torture them after getting an answer, why torture them in the first case? Why not just get them to explain that in the first case?

It's not the type of torture I describe.

It is exactly the torture you describe, you will have to read down quite a bit to find it, but there is a documented part of the kind of torture you described and the effects on the victim.

Your quote "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..

From the link..
I was then taken into what I can only guess was another room and was made stand with my feet wide apart with my hands pressed against a wall. During all this time I could hear a low droning noise, which sounded to me like an electric saw or something of that nature. This continued for what I can only describe as an indefinite period of time.

.... [It is thought that this method of torture lasted for two whole days and nights.] McClean continued; ....

Feet wide apart, hands handcuffed — against the wall. Droning noise filled my head. By this time I could feel no pain. Just numb. Dragged away from the wall, legs buckled under me,’ fell to the floor. Dragged by the ankles up and down shallow steps. Didn’t care — past feeling pain. Didn’t have a body."

It goes on in more detail explaining the damage it can cause.

Read my posts from earlier today, the idea of some sort of overwatch system is to stop that kind of thing. Torture/interrogation and picking random people up off the street don't go hand in hand.

So at what point do you start torturing a person? When you arrest them? When they are tried and convicted?

Guilty people are rarely caught now?

We have this brilliant system called "Innocent until proven guilty". From what I gather so far your saying that torture is only acceptable on people who have been tried and convicted.

When have I said that torturing innocent people is acceptable?

How do you know that 100% of people tortured will be guilty?

torturing people until they confess. No one would be bothered to torture somone for information if they already knew all the information there was to know.

How do you know you have all the information? This is what I am trying to get at. They would obviously be tortured for information (confession of what they know), so it is obvious the person torturing (in your senario) is looking for information. So if that person being tortured is incapable of giving the information, at what point do you belive them?

Champ

Well this is certainly a long thread with quite a view angles taken.

Myself; i've always felt that any forced method used to achieve a goal usually returns inherently flawed results.

I think in most cases if party X cooperates of their own volition; then the final result will be what you seek.

E.g true loyalty doesn't come from bullying...

Specifically i think torture is rather crude; and would hope there are more subtle, civilised approaches available; situation depending.

E.g if a spy is captured from a brutal enemy state rather than torture him for information; try to convince him there's a better future for him here; in that his government would likely punish him for failing them if he returns... Any information he reveales would likely be all the more reliable.

de5p0i1er

loz_the_boz wrote:

Depends on situation,

If a nutcase has bured alive my child and she has hours to live - and he knows where she was bured etc /.................

Ppl who do things like that don't deserve to be protected I say torture is called for in cases like that where someone could die if you don't find out what you need to know quickley.