Torture

[the_gloaming09]

What are your peoples thoughts on torture? I mean of course it's not a good thing the idea of torturing another human being, but do you think it's justified in obtaining information?


Personally I think that if a threat is imminent or dire that it has to be an option put on the table. I don't think that it should be used all the time or even somewhat frequently. However I think there has to be no doubts as to who they're interrogating. I think it should be a similar approach to going to war in that it's a last resort.

[Megalomania]

Only if there's a terror threat right then, as in they find a guy that's planning another 9/11 to take place that day.

Other than that I'm completely against it.

[Cyan Kat]

Yeah unless there is a very serious threat to other people's lives I think torture shouldn't be allowed.

[Braddock]

It would have to be insanely complex to avoid exploitation to meet other ends, and I think another organisation would have to be set up as an arbitrary and who had to find out about every time they used it. Almost impossible to set up. That way if they misused it they would be punished and couldn't sweep it under the carpet (though I'm sure they'd find a way). They would have to decide whether or not to act immediately, and if they made the wrong call they'd get fucked, so they'd have to be sure.

I don't think it's possible myself.

[Braddock]

YouTube - Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)

[the_gloaming09]

^I saw that before

[a_face_of_light]

In extreme circumstances like a serious terrorist threat then yes, in general information gathering or doing it to a prisoner because they can then no, most definatly not.

[burningmonk]

Results can be fabricated pretty easily to justify torture (such as in Guantanamo). Also, what guarantees are there to avoid serious physical or mental damage to a suspect? Would the suspect receive treatment if there is said damage, and who would pay for it? Who decides what an imminent threat is? Does torture actually work? These are important questions that shouldn't be left to some shady people with "national security" rhetoric and dodgy political agendas.

Egypt has had a long history with torture. I'm sure most of the State Security agents will tell you they did the things they did because of the illusion that they were doing them for their country.

[chuck kottke]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burningmonk;4777712
Results can be fabricated pretty easily to justify torture (such as in Guantanamo). Also, what guarantees are there to avoid serious physical or mental damage to a suspect? Would the suspect receive treatment if there is said damage, and who would pay for it? Who decided what an imminent threat is? Does torture actually work? This are important questions that shouldn't be left to some shady people with "national security" rhetoric and dodgy political agendas.

Egypt has had a long history with torture. I'm sure most of the State Security agents will tell you they did the things they did because of the illusion that they were doing them for their country.

---

> All those are good reasons why torture should be made strictly illegal everywhere - no special 'off-limits places' where suspects are tortured. The U.S. government had worked some shady deal with Egypt's former government (and we all know at least some of the cruel things they did) to do the torturing there in Egypt on suspects flown in - and in my mind (a) supporting dictators that do nasty things is something no free country has any right to do, and the imperative to prevent in the spirit of natural human rights, and (b) if it's illegal in your own country, then one should never export behaviors that would not be permitted in one's own country - there are no "other places" where anything goes - human rights know no bounds.
There are truly effective interrogation methods, so torture looses on the practical level as well. The only motives for the crime of torture are when someone wants to make the case for something and wants to force the evidence to fit the desired effect (to get a false confession), or out of some mad desire to hurt someone - an excuse to be abusive, a power trip, ego gone to excess and mad with anger or frustration, directed at someone who looks the part, and someone who can be used as a scapegoat. Torture is a crime, and those engaging in it should be brought to justice.

[Christa42]

if we could have stopped those animals from taking down the World Trade Center and killing my friends and co workers, I would have it done it a second. ten years later the pain does not end.

[Lore]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a_face_of_light;4777688
In extreme circumstances like a serious terrorist threat then yes, in general information gathering or doing it to a prisoner because they can then no, most definatly not.

---

this

[chuck kottke]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christa1;4777737
if we could have stopped those animals from taking down the World Trade Center and killing my friends and co workers, I would have it done it a second. ten years later the pain does not end.

---

I'm very saddened to hear that you lost friends and co-workers in the World Trade Center, Christa My heartfelt sympathy.
I just think it's a matter of If we could have used torture to prevent it, but that's not the answer. To torture is to lower ourselves to the savagery of people like Bin Laden.
In truth, the reason those young men turned into loyal cult followers of Osama Bin Laden and devoted their lives to extreme terrorist acts is because of their being alienated in modern society, and from seeing the plight of their brethren in "failed" states suffering needlessly and cruelly so, sometimes at the hands of dictators propped up by the U.S. government, or through the unfair deals wrought by some corporations based in the West.
Granted the hijackers were in the minority, and the arrogance or ineptness of those heads of agencies responsible for stopping such acts failed miserably in doing their jobs, but when a combination of poor 'foreign' policy choices creates an upsurge in anger, and agency heads fail to do their job, the result is tragic.
What we didn't see were those people being tortured in countries where our government and some large corporate interests (controlling the policy) backed dictators & hard line governments, and caused great suffering. Terrorists find recruits in places where people are suffering, hungry, disenfranchised, or feel pressured by cultural norms alien to them. And of the hijackers, they empathized with those suffering elsewhere, and they themselves felt alienated and disenfranchised in the countries they were living in. Frustrated and searching for an answer, they turned to an extremist who brainwashed them to do the unthinkable, and take the lives of many innocent people.
The antidote is to regain control of our own government, so it acts on our behalf, and in a just and equitable manner both domestically and abroad - following our highest principles as a nation. This and alleviating poverty, opening up real opportunity, would cure the illness that leads some to acts of extreme harm, and instead lead to progress and a new global renaissance.

[burningmonk]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck kottke;4777748
I'm very saddened to hear that you lost friends and co-workers in the World Trade Center, Christa My heartfelt sympathy.
I just think it's a matter of If we could have used torture to prevent it, but that's not the answer. To torture is to lower ourselves to the savagery of people like Bin Laden.
In truth, the reason those young men turned into loyal cult followers of Osama Bin Laden and devoted their lives to extreme terrorist acts is because of their being alienated in modern society, and from seeing the plight of their brethren in "failed" states suffering needlessly and cruelly so, sometimes at the hands of dictators propped up by the U.S. government, or through the unfair deals wrought by some corporations based in the West.
Granted the hijackers were in the minority, and the arrogance or ineptness of those heads of agencies responsible for stopping such acts failed miserably in doing their jobs, but when a combination of poor 'foreign' policy choices creates an upsurge in anger, and agency heads fail to do their job, the result is tragic.
What we didn't see were those people being tortured in countries where our government and some large corporate interests (controlling the policy) backed dictators & hard line governments, and caused great suffering. Terrorists find recruits in places where people are suffering, hungry, disenfranchised, or feel pressured by cultural norms alien to them. And of the hijackers, they empathized with those suffering elsewhere, and they themselves felt alienated and disenfranchised in the countries they were living in. Frustrated and searching for an answer, they turned to an extremist who brainwashed them to do the unthinkable, and take the lives of many innocent people.
The antidote is to regain control of our own government, so it acts on our behalf, and in a just and equitable manner both domestically and abroad - following our highest principles as a nation. This and alleviating poverty, opening up real opportunity, would cure the illness that leads some to acts of extreme harm, and instead lead to progress and a new global renaissance.

---

Well put. Couldn't agree more.

[Gautama]

Ooh. So difficult.

I'm for torture under extreme, but clear circumstances. We had a case here a couple of years ago. I'll tell it to you all and you can think about it. I would be interested to get your thoughts.

In 2002 an eleven year old boy got abducted by some sick shithead. 4 days later police caught the kidnapper when he picked up the ransom. But he refused to tell the police about the whereabouts of the boy.

It was unclear if young Jakob was still alive. The kidnapper was being an arrogant prick, time was running. There was a young kid missing/ possibly hidden somewhere, maybe starving etc. and his family in limbo.

The interrogating police officer eventually freaked out and threatened the asshole to torture him if neccessary to produce Jakob's abode.

The asshole later sued the police officer for the threatening and the latter got a verdict, dunno what it was. The asshole had killed the boy on the day of the abduction.

So what do you think?

I think to preserve the physical intactness of somebody very sick and anti-social cannot not be more important than innocent life.
But that is what law says at the moment. And that is not right, imo. I know, this is very crass, but if crassness was initially and callously created by a person, I think this person should know, that he/she him/herself is responsible for such crass matters if they have to be applied to save the lifes of others.

I'm very serious about that point: that the offender and no one else is responsible for such a crass treatment as a stark consequence of his/her decision to be a crazy fucking monster.

Never as punishment, that would be primitive. But if an offender refuses information which is important to save lifes, then yes.

[Braddock]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a_face_of_light;4777688
In extreme circumstances like a serious terrorist threat then yes, in general information gathering or doing it to a prisoner because they can then no, most definatly not.

---

How do you make it so it isn't abused? In these extreme circumstances there isn't always time to go through all the right checks and fill in the forms, and so with that room for manoeuvre it will be very easy to manipulate.

This would be my answer with the way things are right now if I felt it was realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck kottke;4777748

The antidote is to regain control of our own government, so it acts on our behalf, and in a just and equitable manner both domestically and abroad - following our highest principles as a nation. This and alleviating poverty, opening up real opportunity, would cure the illness that leads some to acts of extreme harm, and instead lead to progress and a new global renaissance.

---

In the short term this isn't possible. That's a long term goal. What happens in the meantime if they know something terrible is imminent? I think torture will be around for a long long time, but yes I'm against it.

This would be my answer in the long term, but I don't think you can ignore what is happening right now.





This is tough.