• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is torture ever warranted?

paximperium

Penultimate Amazing
paximperium
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
10,696
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 12 removed.



I'm rather liberal in my mindset so this may be an odd position I take.
Here is my response:
E.J.Armstrong said:
Who said they did. I am more than happy to invite all the Usian tortureres to visit the EU and see if international law doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
So far despite your fantasy; no, it does not apply even in the EU. Why don't you take it up with your EU and the Hague?
As you are a torture supporter I guess you would say this wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
I'm not a torture supported so who are talking to?
And you are still trying to identify Usians as torturers. Do you even begin to understand how much contempt you are showing ordinary decent Usians by doing this? I suspect you are too young to understand the implications of your own disrespect for human rights and trying to imply that all Usians feel the same as you.
Click to expand...
I speak for myself and myself only.

Sometimes there are reasons to torture. Those claiming that there is no times to do so are naive if not deluded. Your pathetic attempt to appeal to emotions is truly transparent and a tad bit funny, in a pathetic kind of way. I respect human rights especially people who are about to be killed by terrorist.

And oh yeah, it is Americans, making up your own words like Usians make you look mentally retarded.
Don't you understand that torture by any other name still stinks as much. The fact that lunatic right wingers in the USA have decided to rename tortuer makes not one ounce of difference to the true definition.
Click to expand...
Define torture. Do you have a hard time defining it?
In your support for torture when it suits you you are showing total contempt for human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the USA has signed up to.
Click to expand...
I don't support torture. You can keep claiming that but I've never once stated I support it. I believe it is rarely effective. However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats.
When is the USA going to make its mind up what is and isn't torture?
Click to expand...
Read the guidelines. I believe it is spelled out there.
You do know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is don't you?
Click to expand...
Yup.
Why are you so contemptuous of human rights?
Click to expand...
Why are you a pedophile? Why are you a supporter of mass murder?
Now that we're even with the loaded questions, I will simply state that absurd absolutes such as human rights are unrealistic and dangerous ESPECIALLY if following it will lead to the destructin of other innocent's human rights. Human rights should be striven for but there are exceptions to "human rights". The world is not black and white despite your claims.

You do realise that from now on when you call on anyone or any country to obey the law or respect human rights you will be rightly called an utter hypocrite?
Click to expand...
Sure, why not? Your ad hominems are not exactly new either.

Human rights should be respected and Laws should be followed for good reasons. Following laws or "human right" to the detriment of human lives and the human rights of others is BS. I'm assuming you'll follow the law even if it kills a million citizens? What about their human rights?

Would you torture one to save a million? I would.
Will you be as contemptuous of human rights when you are arrested and tortured or your future children are tortured. I suspect you will be just as hypocritical and suddenly realise why a respect for human rights are a minimum qualification to be called a decent state.
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing what sort of monster you really are. Your threats and emotional appeals are noted as to the vile person you really are.

I respect human rights. I especially respect the humans rights of innocents who are about to be killed by terrorists. Human rights is not an absolute unbreakable law. Human rights are not there to prevent people from saving others. It should be broken to save the lives of the many and the innocent.
Click to expand...

Criticize away and discuss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw an interesting episode on American Dad about torture. A bomb was planted in a building full of people. They had the guy in custody who knew the code to defuse the bomb. But they could not get him to give up the code no matter how much they threatened him. Then finally the Dad was allowed to torture him and the guy gave up the code and all the people were saved. Would that situation warrant torture?
 
Quad4_72 said:
I saw an interesting episode on American Dad about torture. A bomb was planted in a building full of people. They had the guy in custody who knew the code to defuse the bomb. But they could not get him to give up the code no matter how much they threatened him. Then finally the Dad was allowed to torture him and the guy gave up the code and all the people were saved. Would that situation warrant torture?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that is such a contrived situation that it is not particularly relevent to the real world.

I wonder if POW's should be routinely tortured, as they would seem some of the most likely situations were you could get useful inteligence to save lives.
 
Quad4_72 said:
I saw an interesting episode on American Dad about torture. A bomb was planted in a building full of people. They had the guy in custody who knew the code to defuse the bomb. But they could not get him to give up the code no matter how much they threatened him. Then finally the Dad was allowed to torture him and the guy gave up the code and all the people were saved. Would that situation warrant torture?
Click to expand...

This is the "ticking time-bomb" scenario so many conservatives and torture defenders use. It is constantly played out on "24" and is a completely implausible scenario. If a plot has gotten to the point where you have 24 hours or less to diffuse a bomb or stop an assassination, it is now to the point where it cannot be stopped no matter the amount of torture inflicted on a person. As for stopping future plots or gathering intelligence, it doesn't work for that either. I say this for two reasons:

1. Practically any credible former (or even current) interrogator will tell you that torture does not work. If you inflict enough pain on someone, they will say anything to get it to stop regardless of the veracity of their info.

2. While terrorists may not be the brightest people in the world (if that assumption is even safe to make), they are also not idiots. If they've set a bomb they likely have set up a number of safeguards including executing (martyring) the only person who knows the codes, locations, etc.

Determination is a hallmark of terrorism so it is folly to assume that the correct information can be extracted by force. Torture gives people a false sense that the government/law enforcement is doing something. It yields no significant information and actually wastes resources by sending agencies on wild goose-chases. Even if the person did give you information that you trusted, the other terrorists in the cell know that he has been captured and that info is no longer good (plan B and all that). The only interrogation techniques proven to give good intel are treating the person with respect and earning their trust. That may not always work but torture never, ever works.

There have been several high-profile examples of suspects being tortured and their info leading to dead-ends or being just plain unusable. Torture never works and is ethically unacceptable. People may think they're safer if someone is having his nuts fried but it's all an illusion, law-enforcement theatre, if you will.
 
Exactly, and if the illusory Ticking bomb senario were real, it would be pardoned and the public would accept it. However, if it is permissible (even ex post facto) for a terrorist in "ticking bomb" situation, why not for a pedophile when a child is missing? In short, if it works, why not apply it to regular criminals?
 
Lothian said:
The Jonas brothers.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...


But, it is only torture if you don't have a choice. I mean, if you could choose being slammed into a wall or waterboarding over the Jonas brothers, it would mitigate some of the evil.
 
Quoth Nice guy Eddie:
"If you beat this prick long enough he'll tell you he started the Goddamn Chicago fire. That doesn't necessarily make it [rule10]ing so!"
 
Quad4_72 said:
I saw an interesting episode on American Dad about torture. A bomb was planted in a building full of people. They had the guy in custody who knew the code to defuse the bomb. But they could not get him to give up the code no matter how much they threatened him. Then finally the Dad was allowed to torture him and the guy gave up the code and all the people were saved. Would that situation warrant torture?
Click to expand...
Yes
 
themusicteacher said:
This is the "ticking time-bomb" scenario so many conservatives and torture defenders use. It is constantly played out on "24" and is a completely implausible scenario. If a plot has gotten to the point where you have 24 hours or less to diffuse a bomb or stop an assassination, it is now to the point where it cannot be stopped no matter the amount of torture inflicted on a person. As for stopping future plots or gathering intelligence, it doesn't work for that either. I say this for two reasons:
Click to expand...
I don't support is regular or even rare use. I believe it should be a last ditch tactic that may be used only in such scenarios. It may be an implausible scenario but if it does happen, would torture be a valid tactic?
1. Practically any credible former (or even current) interrogator will tell you that torture does not work. If you inflict enough pain on someone, they will say anything to get it to stop regardless of the veracity of their info.
Click to expand...
True. I believe that it gives more false information than true information. But on the rare occasion they will tell you what you want to known.
2. While terrorists may not be the brightest people in the world (if that assumption is even safe to make), they are also not idiots. If they've set a bomb they likely have set up a number of safeguards including executing (martyring) the only person who knows the codes, locations, etc.
Click to expand...
True. However, you may on the rare occasion actually capture the mastermind or those in the know.
Determination is a hallmark of terrorism so it is folly to assume that the correct information can be extracted by force. Torture gives people a false sense that the government/law enforcement is doing something. It yields no significant information and actually wastes resources by sending agencies on wild goose-chases. Even if the person did give you information that you trusted, the other terrorists in the cell know that he has been captured and that info is no longer good (plan B and all that). The only interrogation techniques proven to give good intel are treating the person with respect and earning their trust. That may not always work but torture never, ever works.
Click to expand...
I believe that this is patently false. It may not be effective and it may waste resources but you can realistically state that it is completely 100% never ever works. That's just ridiculous.

To set things straight, I don't believe torture is all that use or even that effective. However, I believe there are rare occasions where it may be necessary to save the lives on innocents. In these situations, which should be exceedingly rare, torture may be the only valid way to get the information required. Any use of such a "tactic" should be properly vetted through legal, public and through appropriateness systems. I may even require that the President of the United States approve these rare events and bear responsibility for their outcomes.

There have been several high-profile examples of suspects being tortured and their info leading to dead-ends or being just plain unusable. Torture never works and is ethically unacceptable. People may think they're safer if someone is having his nuts fried but it's all an illusion, law-enforcement theatre, if you will.
Click to expand...
And there are also a few rare events with several Al-queda leaders who did provide useful information under torture. I disapprove of such tactics. Like I said, I don't believe it is that useful but I believe it may and should be used in very circumstance such as the "ticking bomb" scenario.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Exactly, and if the illusory Ticking bomb senario were real, it would be pardoned and the public would accept it. However, if it is permissible (even ex post facto) for a terrorist in "ticking bomb" situation, why not for a pedophile when a child is missing? In short, if it works, why not apply it to regular criminals?
Click to expand...
Actually, pedophile's lawyer is explaining the deal they need to let the pedophile tell you where someone might have hidden this theoretical child who theoretically might have two hours to live - torture the lawyer and the pedophile, first one who gives up the info - if in time to save the child -lives to go to trial.
 
"Is torture ever warranted?"

In theory, perhaps; in reality, highly doubtful: the “cost” is too high and, as EvilSmurf alludes, the results too unreliable.
 
Last edited:
According to CNSNews, the CIA has said that waterboarding led to info that allowed them to prevent a 9/11-like attack on LA. However, the link doesn't appear to be working anymore and CNSNews is a conservative organization, so I will have to wait to see if a mainstream news org confirms its validity.
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom