• 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.

When is torture acceptable?

When is torture acceptable?

  • Torture is never acceptable

    Votes: 38 66.7%

  • Torture is sometimes acceptable

    Votes: 10 17.5%

  • Torture is always acceptable

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • Current interrogation techniques (i.e. Waterboarding) are not torture

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • On Planet X, people pay good money to be waterboarded

    Votes: 8 14.0%
  • Total voters
    57

zaphod2016

Graduate Poster
zaphod2016
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
1,039
I am using the following definition of torture:

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, or 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sold on physical torture. I think it's unreliable, unneeded, and I can't really see a situation in which it would could/must be used.

The big question, though, is "mental" torture. That is a far, far more sticky situation. Where is the line drawn with mental torture? What is defined as mental torture?

I mean, I believe that the most reliable way to get "the truth" from a suspect/prisoner involved in some crime is based on creating a situation where, psychologically speaking, you can ascertain the truth.

I don't know, though. Can we put something like waterboarding in the same category as something like bluffing?

ETA:

What I meant to say is this:

In the US, a detective can, under the law, lie to a suspect being questioned. He can falsely claim that the suspect being questioned has been implicated by an accomplice or that an accomplice has confessed, or what have you, thus implicating that the suspect is in a far worse position than he is actually in. This can cause quite a bit of stress on the suspect's part, and if I'm reading the definition in the OP correctly, can be considered mental torture by some.

So I'm wondering, where is the line with something like "mental torture?"
 
Last edited:
Torture is not acceptable. I cannot think there is anything else to say really.
 
TriskettheKid said:
The big question, though, is "mental" torture. That is a far, far more sticky situation. Where is the line drawn with mental torture? What is defined as mental torture?
Click to expand...

A very sticky situation. Every detective in America uses intimidation when interrogating a suspect, but I would be hard-pressed to call that torture. On the other hand, forcing a Muslim man into a sexual pose with a female soldier is most certainly over the line.

Fiona said:
Torture is not acceptable. I cannot think there is anything else to say really.
Click to expand...

I wish that were true. Until very recently, I though this was true. Sadly, many of my fellow Americans disagree.
 
zaphod2016 said:
A very sticky situation. Every detective in America uses intimidation when interrogating a suspect, but I would be hard-pressed to call that torture. On the other hand, forcing a Muslim man into a sexual pose with a female soldier is most certainly over the line.
Click to expand...

And I agree.

But I'm wondering where the line is. The definition you used in the OP makes it seem like common and widely accepted interrogation techniques used by pretty much every law-enforcement agency in the US could be considered torture.

I mean, intimidation? Seriously?
 
zaphod2016 said:
I wish that were true. Until very recently, I though this was true. Sadly, many of my fellow Americans disagree.
Click to expand...

That's because with enough mental gymnastics, one can believe anything.

I'm too lazy to bother with those gymnastics.
 
I think we need the clearest prohibition of torture in all circumstances. The language of the C.A.T. says:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Click to expand...

This CNN legal commentator says:
A categorical legal prohibition on torture not only reflects what decent people believe, but is also fundamental to the society we wish to live in and belong to. An absolute prohibition is also designed to prevent us from sliding down the slippery slope that would end in the use of torture in less than truly exceptional cases (just because interrogators have gotten used to employing it in "exceptional cases") or in applying similar methods to "ordinary" criminals.
Click to expand...

I think leaving the door open to any justification causes the huge problem that there are people in any given situation who will be able to think that their situation is that rare case when it is justified, and you end up with no prohibition at all.
 
In the poll, choice number 4 is answering a different question.

I realize there's some overlap, and I think this too points to the need for a very strong and absolute prohibition against torture in all cases. People are trying to justify torture by claiming that what they're doing is not torture even though it plainly fits the definition.
 
Fiona said:
Torture is not acceptable. I cannot think there is anything else to say really.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't really thinking. There is far more to say, even if you come to the same final conclusion.

Here are some examples of what more can be said:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/22/terrorism-and-moral-torture/
"Now I agree with Jacoby that it is moral to refuse to use coercion even as “a last and desperate option”. But just as I myself undertook never to betray my companions under even the worst duress, the question I must ask is how long can you do it? How long can Nancy Pelosi hold out; how long can Barack Obama hold out, if it is not somebody else’s child, but their own children who they could save by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who when he is not spilling the beans, is laughing in your face?"

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/30/the-price-of-safety/
"As I’ve repetitively argued, a person or a society is entitled to run any degree of physical risk it chooses in order to uphold its moral values. But never blindly; never without understanding the costs. Given that survival trumps magnanimity and restraint, it is important that policy makers never let things come the point where desperation dominates all considerations. The only way to be permanently or consistently restrained, as a practical matter, is to retain a very large margin over one’s foes."

Note the two rather important concepts: first, it doesn't matter what anyone says, we WILL torture people if we get desperate enough. Secondly, if you wish to avoid the use of torture, you should be concerned not just with formally forbidding its use, you should be very concerned with making sure we never get to that point of desperation where any previous principles fly out the window.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think we need the clearest prohibition of torture in all circumstances. The language of the C.A.T. says:



This CNN legal commentator says:


I think leaving the door open to any justification causes the huge problem that there are people in any given situation who will be able to think that their situation is that rare case when it is justified, and you end up with no prohibition at all.
Click to expand...



Amendment VIII of the bill of rights.

No "cruel or unusual punishment".
 
TriskettheKid said:
The big question, though, is "mental" torture. That is a far, far more sticky situation. Where is the line drawn with mental torture? What is defined as mental torture?
Click to expand...

In the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the definition is:
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, or 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...
When the U.S. ratified this, they wrote a big bunch of reservations on the issue you're speaking of and limited the idea of severe mental pain somewhat, restricting it to things that are prolonged, for example. However, in the U.S. Code, the things that can be considered "severe mental pain" included the following:

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
Click to expand...

It is completely disingenuous to say that waterboarding for example is not torture. It fits both (A) and (C). Waterboarding in particular relies on making the person think he is about to die.

I do wish people would stop claiming that the legal definition of "torture" is vague. It's quite explicit.

The problem is Bush's legal advisers tried to redefine torture in a way that is obviously contradictory to these laws. They say that for something to be "severe pain" to qualify as torture it must be pain that is equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function or even death. These guys should, at the very least, be disbarred for giving advice that is so plainly in contradiction to the law.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Then you aren't really thinking. There is far more to say, even if you come to the same final conclusion.

Here are some examples of what more can be said:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/22/terrorism-and-moral-torture/
"Now I agree with Jacoby that it is moral to refuse to use coercion even as “a last and desperate option”. But just as I myself undertook never to betray my companions under even the worst duress, the question I must ask is how long can you do it? How long can Nancy Pelosi hold out; how long can Barack Obama hold out, if it is not somebody else’s child, but their own children who they could save by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who when he is not spilling the beans, is laughing in your face?"

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/30/the-price-of-safety/
"As I’ve repetitively argued, a person or a society is entitled to run any degree of physical risk it chooses in order to uphold its moral values. But never blindly; never without understanding the costs. Given that survival trumps magnanimity and restraint, it is important that policy makers never let things come the point where desperation dominates all considerations. The only way to be permanently or consistently restrained, as a practical matter, is to retain a very large margin over one’s foes."

Note the two rather important concepts: first, it doesn't matter what anyone says, we WILL torture people if we get desperate enough. Secondly, if you wish to avoid the use of torture, you should be concerned not just with formally forbidding its use, you should be very concerned with making sure we never get to that point of desperation where any previous principles fly out the window.
Click to expand...

Torture does not produce truth.
 
I was always brought up to think I was on the same side as the good guys

You might remember them. They collectivly fought WW2 againsts enemies who thought nothing of toture as a way to extract information. Away to exterminate people they simply didn't like

They fought the Cold War - Against a people we were warned about through cautionary tales such as 1984. People who would use torture to manipulate, change, extract lies as a way to the truth

Suddenly I wonder what happened to the good guys. I like being on their team. I like not lowering myself to bad guys level. I like being able to hold my head up and say "We are better than that"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom