Is torture ever warranted?

[paximperium]

Is torture ever warranted?

Not in a society that wants to value human rights...it is not just about the rights of the 'victim' but also the rights of those we would expect to do the torturing!! and what we turn them into

But that is where I'm kind of torn.

I oppose torture but if and when it comes to saving lives of innocents, is the value of "human rights" of the alleged terrorist more important than the humans lives and the rights of the victims.

 

[tomwaits]

Torture did seem to work for the gestapo.
At one point they were quite close to rolling up most of the danish resistance movement.
The surviving resistance called in a RAF airstrike against the gestapo headquarter in copenhagen to kill the captured resistance leaders before they could talk, and get the file cabinets I guess.

I guess gestapo were better at it than the abu grai crew, or danish resistance fighters were softer.

Was the Abu Ghraib crew actually looking for information? Or were they just doing it for kicks?

 

[paximperium]

Was the Abu Ghraib crew actually looking for information? Or were they just doing it for kicks?

Both. They were doing it for kicks and they were "encouraged" by unnamed CIA and military intelligent agents to "soften them up".

 

[DC]

when you have time to torture, you have time to evacuate.
and the ticking bomb scenario is strange, especially considering islamist terrorists that would also blow them self up. I highly doubt he talks.

time is better invested in evacuate

 

[paximperium]

when you have time to torture, you have time to evacuate.
and the ticking bomb scenario is strange, especially considering islamist terrorists that would also blow them self up. I highly doubt he talks.

time is better invested in evacuate

You can do both. You can evacuate and interrogate.

The ticking bomb scenario is usually directed towards a WMD, a nuclear bomb/biological weapon etc. In that scenario, how do you evacuate an entire city of millions?

 

[Toke]

Was the Abu Ghraib crew actually looking for information? Or were they just doing it for kicks?

A bit of each I guess, the information types did not take or at least publicated the pictures.
I am not sure how much were for kicks and how much were official "softening up"

I am not sure how well torture works, the french lost algiria, and the us have lost irak and afganistan, so it is not a war winner by itself.
More likely the resentment it causes outweight any benefit.

I do find torture offensive, but could imagine scenarios where I would endorse it.

 

[DC]

You can do both. You can evacuate and interrogate.

You wanted to torture. I see no use in violating moral principles. When a guy is sick enough to use WMD's against people, i highly doubt he will talk, he prefers martyrdom.

The ticking bomb scenario is usually directed towards a WMD, a nuclear bomb/biological weapon etc. In that scenario, how do you evacuate an entire city of millions?

The same way you would do, maybe i have a better idea, dunno, i listen first to your idea.

or did you actually plan to torture without evacuation?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Is torture ever warranted?

Not in a society that wants to value human rights...it is not just about the rights of the 'victim' but also the rights of those we would expect to do the torturing!! and what we turn them into

Exactly…

But that is where I'm kind of torn.

I oppose torture but if and when it comes to saving lives of innocents, is the value of "human rights" of the alleged terrorist more important than the humans lives and the rights of the victims.

Unless I’m mistaken, BonkingBear is primarily concerned with the human rights of those we charge with imposing the torture and perhaps to a lesser degree, society as a whole.

 

[Toke]

Did I get this right?
There is a tv-serie called 24hours where the "hero" get a ticking bomb scenario and solve it succesfully every time with thumbscrews or similiar.

And the viewers learn that torture works great every time.

 

[DC]

Did I get this right?
There is a tv-serie called 24hours where the "hero" get a ticking bomb scenario and solve it succesfully every time with thumbscrews or similiar.

And the viewers learn that torture works great every time.

it was sick crap...

 

[paximperium]

You wanted to torture.

I don't want to. I have to.

I see no use in violating moral principles.

Even if it leads to people getting killed?

When a guy is sick enough to use WMD's against people, i highly doubt he will talk, he prefers martyrdom.

Are you sure about this? Are you sure they won't break if they are tortured? I've yet to see any evidence that this is an absolute statement.

The same way you would do, maybe i have a better one, dunno, i listen firt to your idea.

or did you actually plan to torture without evacuation?

You can try both but many won't make it and the damage would be catastrophic. I say do both as well but if you have a choice of torturing and finding the bomb Vs. not torturing and leading to more dead and more damage, what would you do?

 

[Toke]

Germany had a nasty case a few years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html

Guess I would go with the police.

 

[paximperium]

Did I get this right?
There is a tv-serie called 24hours where the "hero" get a ticking bomb scenario and solve it succesfully every time with thumbscrews or similiar.

And the viewers learn that torture works great every time.

The show is called "24". It's an amusing TV show and is very popular throughout the world. It got kind of boring in the last few seasons.

 

[DC]

I don't want to. I have to.
Even if it leads to people getting killed?
Are you sure about this? Are you sure they won't break if they are tortured? I've yet to see any evidence that this is an absolute statement.

You can try both but many won't make it and the damage would be catastrophic. I say do both as well but if you have a choice of torturing and finding the bomb Vs. not torturing and leading to more dead and more damage, what would you do?

well if such a scenario would hapen i would help organising the evacuation, you can try what you want. I would not waste my time with torture.
people can sue me afterwards for not torturing him, i dont mind.

 

[Toke]

The show is called "24". It's an amusing TV show and is very popular throughout the world. It got kind of boring in the last few seasons.

Somehow I do not like the idea of such a show being popular.
Guess I am a sissy.

 

[DC]

Germany had a nasty case a few years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html

Guess I would go with the police.

okey

i retract what i said.

and leave discussion.

i will decide whenever i have to.

 

[paximperium]

well if such a scenario would hapen i would help organising the evacuation, you can try what you want. I would not waste my time with torture.

This is not about "you" or "I". This is about the ethics involved.

people can sue me afterwards for not torturing him, i dont mind.

This is not about lawsuits. This is about saving lives.

If you knew 100%(which is not a realistic number) that torturing one terrorist would save 100 lives, would you?
What about 50% probability? Would saving 1000 lives be enough? Or do you need more?

 

[GreNME]

"Is torture ever warranted?"

No.

The world does not work like Hollywood television and movies, so the ticking time bomb crap is precisely that: crap. One stands a better chance of playing captives against each other or working an interrogator into a sympathetic position in the captive's perspective, because the information is more reliable. In the goofy "ticking time bomb" scenario someone who is tortured could just as easily lie to get the torture to stop, which is no more useful than asking a bomb to defuse itself with a "pretty please."

While the uber-hawks keep playing their fictional "ticking time bomb" card, the real world example of how the intelligence that led to US forces killing Zarqawi in Iraq trump the hypothetical (and fictional) "what if?" any day of the week.

So, no.

 

[paximperium]

Somehow I do not like the idea of such a show being popular.
Guess I am a sissy.

Well it is about a CIA special agent who kills terrorists and fights conspiracies. It's no more realistic than say, "Rambo"...or "Grey's Anatomy".

 

[Toke]

I don't want to. I have to.
Even if it leads to people getting killed?
Are you sure about this? Are you sure they won't break if they are tortured? I've yet to see any evidence that this is an absolute statement.

You can try both but many won't make it and the damage would be catastrophic. I say do both as well but if you have a choice of torturing and finding the bomb Vs. not torturing and leading to more dead and more damage, what would you do?

In such a far out scenario I would help with the wirering.


The problem is that in cases like chile, torture were used to suppress dissidents. And any endorsment will lend credibility to dictatureships.

That is torture for informations versus torture for general terror against the population.