Torture

Is it ever justified?

yes.

No.

yes.

No.

These are good posts.

Let's dig a bit deeper:

To the "no" brigade - if you have someone in custody with knowledge of an impending attack that will take many lives indiscriminately and the only way of getting that knowledge is by applying some fairly extreme physical/mental pressure how could you justify not doing it?

I'd counter that argument by suggesting that there is no way you'd hear the truth by torturing someone. The victim coud say anything just to stop the pain.

In any event, carrying out torture just brings the perpetrators down to the level of those they're trying to overcome.

I'd counter that argument by suggesting that there is no way you'd hear the truth by torturing someone. The victim coud say anything just to stop the pain.

 

In any event, carrying out torture just brings the perpetrators down to the level of those they're trying to overcome.

But bush was saying that it did get results

I'd counter that argument by suggesting that there is no way you'd hear the truth by torturing someone. The victim coud say anything just to stop the pain.

 

In any event, carrying out torture just brings the perpetrators down to the level of those they're trying to overcome.

But bush was saying that it did get results

Indeed. There is no way of being certain as to how effective it is unless you do it and measure the results.

But BTF, if you need to degrade yourself to save others is that not in some ways heroic?

Research has shown that torture is a completely unreliable method of extracting information and I do not believe it should ever be used.

With Benji off 'sick' today, I have a feeling we may well all be tortured

I'm in the 'yes' camp by the way, sometimes I even think torture is a necessity in the Post Office, just to get some of the old Doris's to remember their bloody pin number and get the queue moving quicker

The 'intelligence' that Iraq defininitely had WMDs was obtained by torture.

QED !

Torture should be more widespread IMO.

Like torturing the plumber who 'fixed' my toilet only for it to break again 3 days later.

or

any BT employee, or any Talk Talk employee

or

people who illegally park and then cry like babies when they get a ticket.

I could go on.

With Benji off 'sick' today, I have a feeling we may well all be tortured

 

I'm in the 'yes' camp by the way, sometimes I even think torture is a necessity in the Post Office, just to get some of the old Doris's to remember their bloody pin number and get the queue moving quicker

The Post Office certainly is torture.

I had to go to Shirley post office first thing on a Monday morning a few weeks ago and it smelt of wee. It was only made bearable by the fact that I was there to get a load of Croatian Kuna and bugger off to the sun for a few weeks!

Bexy - fair enough, if that's what the research shows then I shall not argue. However....

Let's say you are in charge of managing London's infrastructure. You receive information from a very trusted and reliable source telling you that there is going to be some sort of attack this morning and you have the power to take action to limit the consequences of that attack. You know that the information given to you was obtained by torture but you also know that the source of the information has a history of obtaining good results. What do you do?

The 'intelligence' that Iraq defininitely had WMDs was obtained by torture.

 

QED !

Well, that's clearly an example of failure but there's a lacuna between that one fact and an axiomatic dismissal of the practice.

Anyway, I tought it was made up by a work-experience lad, not obtained by torture?

I'm with BTF and Bexy on this one

If any member of my family was threatened or hurt, I'd probably inflict it myself.

I'd say it's justified so long as it's done in a western christian civilised manner.

Indeed. There is no way of being certain as to how effective it is unless you do it and measure the results.

 

But BTF, if you need to degrade yourself to save others is that not in some ways heroic?

No - it's hypocritical and loses you the moral high ground.

LOL @ Dubya reckoning he stopped attacks in London by water-boarding

Bexy - fair enough, if that's what the research shows then I shall not argue. However....

 

Let's say you are in charge of managing London's infrastructure. You receive information from a very trusted and reliable source telling you that there is going to be some sort of attack this morning and you have the power to take action to limit the consequences of that attack. You know that the information given to you was obtained by torture but you also know that the source of the information has a history of obtaining good results. What do you do?

I think you misunderstand my point. I am advocating that torture should never be used in the first place, so the scenario you have described would never arise . However, IF that information has already been extracted, possibly by the intelligence agencies of another country, then it would be utterly foolish to ignore the possibility that it is correct as the consequences of failing to act on information already gained would be far too great, IMO.

I'd say it's justified so long as it's done in a western christian civilised manner.

The words 'torture' and 'civilised' are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as civilised torture; it is barbaric no matter how you dress it up.

I think spanking is ok.

Those of us who lived through the wilderness years of Branfo*t are well acquainted with being tortured.

If any member of my family was threatened or hurt, I'd probably inflict it myself.

I'm with you on this.

If someone had kidnapped my wife and kids and a person in my presence knew where they were being held, I would hardly be giving them a cup of tea and biscuits. I would ask them where they are and after a reasonable amount of time, start amputating limbs until the answer was forthcoming.

Well, that's clearly an example of failure but there's a lacuna between that one fact and an axiomatic dismissal of the practice.

 

Anyway, I tought it was made up by a work-experience lad, not obtained by torture?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/torture-or-nati.html

"The "operative", we now know, was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libbi. He was waterboarded and given Bush-approved hypothermia treatment, i.e. frozen till he could take it no longer. It was only then that he told of al Qaeda's links with Saddam's WMDs. Guess what? Libbi subsequently retracted his confession. According to ABC News, the CIA subsequently found al-Libbi "had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment." So I now realize that part of the reason I believed the WMD case for war against Saddam was because the Bush administration had been secretly torturing suspects and got false confessions. The biggest intelligence failure in recent US history - the WMD case in Iraq - was partly created by the torture policy. "

I'd say it's justified so long as it's done in a western christian civilised manner.

Burning at the stake, the rack, or the Iron Maiden ?

Burning at the stake, the rack, or the Iron Maiden ?

the jokes there somewhere!... just can't put my finger on it.

Burning at the stake, the rack, or the Iron Maiden ?

The soft cushions

Burning at the stake, the rack, or the Iron Maiden ?

For paedophiles i'd bring back Oubliettes and put them in there and seal it and leave them to die.

I think you misunderstand my point. I am advocating that torture should never be used in the first place, so the scenario you have described would never arise . However, IF that information has already been extracted, possibly by the intelligence agencies of another country, then it would be utterly foolish to ignore the possibility that it is correct as the consequences of failing to act on information already gained would be far too great, IMO.

Indeed, but morally what's the difference? Using the information is a form of moral endorsement. By acting on that information you are clearly adducing the value judgment that torture, in that case, is better than no torture. Unless you would have preferred for no torture to have happened and the attack to have gone ahead, which is the consequence of your second statement.

Indeed, but morally what's the difference? Using the information is a form of moral endorsement. By acting on that information you are clearly adducing the value judgment that torture, in that case, is better than no torture. Unless you would have preferred for no torture to have happened and the attack to have gone ahead, which is the consequence of your second statement.

Indeed. It's a bit like the 'PC Brigade' continuing to use products such as toothpaste, cosmetics, etc, that once upon a time were tested on animals to make sure they were safe when first developed. Animals had to die for those products to come onto the market place in the first place but people disconnect themselves from that reality and justify using said products on the basis that there is no longer a direct connection.

Humans are very good at being selective with their morals.....

Torture can take many forms : having to work in an office where "The X Factor", "Strictly come .....", "I'm a Celebrity ( in my own mind)", "Katie & Peter ( who cares ? )" are among the subjects of post-weekend conversation is really difficult to endure.

In an ideal everyone would live in peace and harmony. But it's not an ideal world. We are at war with terrorist extremists. And as the saying goes, "All's fair in love and war"

http://newsthump.com/2010/11/09/george-w-bush-still-convinced-waterboarding-is-fancy-water-skiing/

Quite impressed that you managed to take people in with this, inspired.

Lol

For paedophiles i'd bring back Oubliettes and put them in there and seal it and leave them to die.

Are you:-

If you know that a specific individual has information that definitely would prevent civilian deaths it is acceptable to torture them imo. The trouble is, how do you stop that tight focus turning into routine torture of every Taliban member or Islamic militant you meet.

If you know that a specific individual has information that definitely would prevent civilian deaths it is acceptable to torture them imo. The trouble is, how do you stop that tight focus turning into routine torture of every Taliban member or Islamic militant you meet.

Agree with this.

Humans are very good at being selective with their morals.....

Indeed, like vegetarians who wear leather shoes.

Indeed, like vegetarians who wear leather shoes.

Reminds me of the moral dilemma posed by Ali G when talking to a bunch of Animal Rights peeps

"What if I said 'eat this chicken, or I'll kill another chicken'?" LOL

I'm with you on this.

 

If someone had kidnapped my wife and kids and a person in my presence knew where they were being held, I would hardly be giving them a cup of tea and biscuits. I would ask them where they are and after a reasonable amount of time, start amputating limbs until the answer was forthcoming.

+ 1

How about the feather treatment, surely thats acceptable!

Consider the universalisability of 'torture'.

Consider the universalisability of 'torture'.

Indeed.

With Benji off 'sick' today, I have a feeling we may well all be tortured

 

I'm in the 'yes' camp by the way, sometimes I even think torture is a necessity in the Post Office, just to get some of the old Doris's to remember their bloody pin number and get the queue moving quicker

surely you just need to find out what year they were born.

In an ideal everyone would live in peace and harmony. But it's not an ideal world. We are at war with terrorist extremists. And as the saying goes, "All's fair in love and war"

too rite

If you know that a specific individual has information that definitely would prevent civilian deaths it is acceptable to torture them imo. The trouble is, how do you stop that tight focus turning into routine torture of every Taliban member or Islamic militant you meet.

Ask yourelf only what would any Taliban or Islamic Militant do to you if you were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sorry BTF, I understand why you say what you do, but you like so many others truly do not understand that there are people who's only interest in life is to destroy every single part of what you call life. Your culture, your technology, your utter existance reduced to medieval servitude in the name of the Lord.

If they prevail, your descendants wouldn't even have the benefit of an education to understand the morals of your civilisation that you were trying to protect.

You wish to stand by your morals - they laugh at your weakness.

In ANY other "Geneva Convention" type "disagreement" then I would be on your side with your opinions. But having been to Yemen, the Swat Valley, refugee camps in Beirut, we are at war like no other in history and to tie one hand behind your back would be like taking on the Daleks with a Paintball Gun (and no Doctor or Rose around to help)

Ask yourelf only what would any Taliban or Islamic Militant do to you if you were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Sorry BTF, I understand why you say what you do, but you like so many others truly do not understand that there are people who's only interest in life is to destroy every single part of what you call life. Your culture, your technology, your utter existance reduced to medieval servitude in the name of the Lord.

 

If they prevail, your descendants wouldn't even have the benefit of an education to understand the morals of your civilisation that you were trying to protect.

 

Thats all well and good, but once the self-defence plea used to justify the Iraq invasion was blown out of the water the invading coalition used an entirely moral justification for it, ie our society and its beliefs and values are superior to those of the society whose country we invaded. You cant have it both ways and say that saddam and his regime needed to be removed because they tortured people, and then go blithely ahead and do it yourself.

Thats all well and good, but once the self-defence plea used to justify the Iraq invasion was blown out of the water the invading coalition used an entirely moral justification for it, ie our society and its beliefs and values are superior to those of the society whose country we invaded. You cant have it both ways and say that saddam and his regime needed to be removed because they tortured people, and then go blithely ahead and do it yourself.

I have not and I will NEVER argue in anything to do with supporting the moron's intervention into Iraq. This thread is not about Iraq it is about Torture.

ANY fool with a few years understanding of the Middle East wil understand that the male of the region is about show and bluster. Remember Comical Ali?

Iraq existed as a state and the bluster performed a critical role in balancing the other local idiots - The Iranians. Take the Iraqi state away and bingo the Iranians can do what they want.

The Taliban have never been in Iraq, and for anyone who had looked, neither were Al Qaeda BEFORE the invasion.

You want to defend the removal of Saddam because he tortured people? hell, better invade Saudi, Indonesia, Russia (you never seen any Spy movies?) where else? Oh yeah, Argentina, most of Africa especially those racists who tortured Black Activists in Jo'Berg.

Iraq was invaded because of Pops being embarrased and Dickie boy wanting to carve up the business with his mates. The puppet in #10 went along with it. That was NEVER about "The war on Terror" or about civilised ideals.

I've said it before and will say it again. The reason for the spread of nutters is shown perfectly in the Movie Charlie Wilson's War when they failed to support development in Afghanistan after the Soviets were kicked out by - yep the Taliban before their corporate makeover who were supported by - yep the yanks because they killed Russkies.

Torture to discover who has sent the latest load of DHL shipments from where is perfectly valid. WHY the whole fecking mess is with us - that is simple - Charlie Wilson knows and teh first three who REALLY should be waterboarded to find the truth are Bush, Blair & Cheney

I'd counter that argument by suggesting that there is no way you'd hear the truth by torturing someone. The victim coud say anything just to stop the pain.

Thats rubbish IMO, torture works, that's why they do it.

I think in only certain circumstances it should be done, only if you know someone is involved in terrorism and are pretty certain lives could be saved.

Very difficult question, this, and one I can't answer with a simple yes or no. It's very easy to be incredibly moralistic or incredibly naive about this, from both sides. In the end, I suppose I have to go somewhere along the 'needs of the many' route. The problem is, it's so entirely barbaric. You need nutters to do it, frankly, and many people tortured over the centuries have been with no reason. Trying to extract something means it's hidden, which could also mean it isn't there. I'm a pragmatist, and while my ideals rail against the concept of torture, in any form, the fact of the matter is that 1 million lives at stake do outweigh that of an individual, pretty much whoever that is. I don't believe that it being done to a subjective 'bad guy' makes a great deal of difference either, but I would feel slightly more ok about such an act if it was 100% certain the victim was a murderous bastard who intended massive crimes, and with whom torture could genuinely bring about the salvation of many others. But I would never, ever be comfortable with it, would always seek other ways first, and would seek to ensure it was always considered a highly unpleasant act - never one undertaken as a matter of course or in any way taken lightly.