Is torture ever acceptable?

ionapaul

Well, what do you think?

Beruthiel

no it's not
I can't think of one reason where it could be

loz_the_boz

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 /.................

loz_the_boz

I suppose we should also define torture

mental/physical ?

ionapaul

I have always found this question very hard to answer. What if torturing a person would save another's life? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1,000 lives?

Zulu

In a word, no.

Darren

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 /.................

In this scenario I'd torture it out of them myself. I'd probably get some satisfaction out of it as well.

Zulu

ionapaul wrote:

I have always found this question very hard to answer. What if torturing a person would save another's life? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1,000 lives?

Then it's necessary, but not acceptable.

vorbis

Zulu wrote:

Then it's necessary, but not acceptable.

thats a complete fudge Zulu. If you believe something should be done in a certain situation then you're accepting it being done in that situation. Myself I think its acceptable in exceptional situations. What people mean by torture would also be useful. Generally I'd calssify it as some form of major mental or physical pain.

Tommy Vercetti

No, never.

Sparks

No, because it doesn't work.

Manach

In exceptional cases and only if the torturer would be willing to stand trial afterwards and answer for his/her actions.

luckat

Never.... though where clampers are concerned I'd find myself wavering a little....

ChipZilla

Sparks wrote:

No, because it doesn't work.

Course it does. If I hammered six inch nails through your feet into a floor, doused you in petrol, and started threatening you with a blowtorch you'd tell me what I wanted to know.

Same goes for electrocution, beating with bars of soap in a towel, beating the soles of feet, sleep deprivation, etc, etc. Everybody has a breaking point...

luckat

But ChipZilla, I'd tell you what you wanted to know *whether it were true or not*! Am I a member of the Taliban? Yes sir! Is this me photographed with Ossie Bin Laden? Deffo...careful with that blowtorch, sir... Am I planning to blow up the Statue of Liberty because I think it's bad art? How very perceptive and intelligent of you, sir...

Sparks

ChipZilla wrote:

Course it does. If I hammered six inch nails through your feet into a floor, doused you in petrol, and started threatening you with a blowtorch you'd tell me what I wanted to know.

Precisely. That's why it doesn't work. I'd be telling you what I thought you wanted to hear, not what you knew you needed to hear. Hence the many false alarms in the US based on information taken under torture - the aim of the tortured is to stop the torture, not to divulge honest information and the aim of the torturer is to force the tortured to divulge secret information, not to verify the authenticity of that information. Therefore if the tortured wants to stop the torture, he can make up something and the worth of the information is often based on how much torture has been applied.

ChipZilla

Hmmm, I suppose for torture to work properly you would need to hang on to the person being tortured until the information you get is verified.

Zulu

vorbis wrote:

thats a complete fudge Zulu. If you believe something should be done in a certain situation then you're accepting it being done in that situation. Myself I think its acceptable in exceptional situations. What people mean by torture would also be useful. Generally I'd calssify it as some form of major mental or physical pain.

Well, no, it's not. In the situation previously pointed out - a physco has your child buried alive.... - I/you would personally feel it nessary to do whatever in order to get the information required, but that dosen't make it acceptable to me/you/society, or the moralistic codes we live by.

Sparks

ChipZilla wrote:

Hmmm, I suppose for torture to work properly you would need to hang on to the person being tortured until the information you get is verified.

So you torture someone, get the information, go off to verify it and it isn't correct. Now what? You going to nail hands to floors twice? How do you know you won't get wrong information the second time? And what if there's a time deadline?

luckat

Ah, but what's an acceptable situation? One person's acceptable situation is not necessarily another's. And what is acceptable has a tendency to broaden, once the idea that torture is allowed under some circumstances is established.

ChipZilla

Sparks wrote:

So you torture someone, get the information, go off to verify it and it isn't correct. Now what? You going to nail hands to floors twice? How do you know you won't get wrong information the second time? And what if there's a time deadline?

Not having ever tortured someone myself, I'd guess that if the info you got was wrong you'd have to come back with something more excruciating than the first effort. You wouldn't use all the 'good' stuff up on the first go. Having your feet nailed to a floor would probably be a walk in the park compared to, say, someone ripping out your fingernails and toenails with a pliers.

gandalf

Let me see if we are talking about the War on Terror TM then once you start to torture people you fall quite rapidally off the high moral ground. You become as bad as those you are defending the world against (Supposedly :rolleyes:).

Torture is unacceptable fullstop. As has been stated already who decides what is acceptable, the military, politicians, your local mob !!!

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

I have always found this question very hard to answer. What if torturing a person would save another's life? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1,000 lives?

What if killing a child would save anothers life? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1,000 lives? Would you do it?

What about if raping a child would save anothers life? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1,000 lives? Would you do it?

You know it is very easy to say "in special circumstances", but who decides those circumstances?

If we are talking about "War on terror" bare in mind that a lot of the people detained have not even been charged with a crime, and some after 2 years have been released without ever been charged with anything. Does that make it right?

Torture is not acceptable under any circumstances.

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?

Torture? yes. In exceptional circumstances. The child example, or perhaps a nuke to be found etc. Very strict guidelines.

But regular use of torture to a braod selection of people? no.

Beruthiel

Hobbes wrote:

You know it is very easy to say "in special circumstances", but who decides those circumstances?

it was decided yesterday, in an english court room that it was acceptable to go on intelligence obtained under torture, as long as the tortures were not english – so basically saying, it’s ok to torture people :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Torture? yes. In exceptional circumstances. The child example, or perhaps a nuke to be found etc. Very strict guidelines.

So you would torture people to find Saddams WMD? After all Bush said he was making nukes.

no. Exceptional circumstances.

i.e. You have the one person in custody that knows where the bomb is located and armed. You need that info. So you torture, using drugs. Yes, in this instance i think its allowed.

The broad selection of a population to determine an unknown? No way.

Tommy Vercetti

Deleted User wrote:

i.e. You have the one person in custody that knows where the bomb is located and armed. You need that info. So you torture, using drugs. Yes, in this instance i think its allowed.

But later you discover that the person who you originally tortured to find out that there is a bomb in the first place turns out to have only told you this because he dislikes having his testicles electrocuted, and there is no bomb at all. Oh well. :rolleyes:

ionapaul

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?

Torture? yes. In exceptional circumstances. The child example, or perhaps a nuke to be found etc. Very strict guidelines.

But regular use of torture to a braod selection of people? no.

I would have to say that personally, I would consider the truth serum as described to be torture.

I think that giving three options in the poll was a little mis-leading - if you select 'yes', either in general or just in exceptional circumstance, you obviously believe that the bad of torture (I'm assuming all here believe torture in of itself to be a bad thing) can be outweighed by the good resulting from this action.

I definitely would face a moral dilemma in many hypothetical circumstances - whether torturing someone to save a city/whatever would be acceptable to me. Like Hobbes suggested, what about killing an innocent child to save thousands of others?

Most of us (I truly believe) would torture a stranger involved in kidnapping/harming our child, spouse or sibling, if it would lead to the safe return of the family member. At that point the human instinct we have to love/protect the familiar over the alien, particularly when it comes to someone we share DNA with, will kick in strong enough to override our previously untested moral objections. That this course of action follows (the so-called) natural law doesn't make it the right thing to do, of course - nature is 'red in tooth and claw'.

Perhaps a better question - to remove the personal element from this - would be to ask if State-practiced torture is ever acceptable?

Zulu

Deleted User wrote:

no. Exceptional circumstances.

i.e. You have the one person in custody that knows where the bomb is located and armed. You need that info. So you torture, using drugs. Yes, in this instance i think its allowed.

The broad selection of a population to determine an unknown? No way.

...and what if the person in custody dosen't know where the bomb is? :rolleyes: There will always be a miscarrage of justice.

...and what if the person in custody dosen't know where the bomb is?

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.

There will always be a miscarrage of justice

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

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?