Your stand on torture

[Skybird]

This is a tough one. It really is. Take a slow breath and leave your hot emotions behind, we do not want this to go up in flames. Just give your reasons, calm and reasonable please. If somebody starts to voice juvenile rants here, I will be the first to ask the mods to lock this thread.

Question: what is your stand on torture?

The poll is open for 10 days. The poll is public, that means your name is visible under the option you have chosen.

You have these six options, that I explain in detail here, since the poll headlines only allows limited number of characters. Use these descriptions to decide your pick.

1 Yes, no problem with torture if society and/or government can be made less vulnerable to terrorism that way. Innocents trapped is the price to pay. the interests of the many overrule the interests of the few.

2 Yes, no problem, since the authorities always make it safe that no innocents get tortured.

3 Yes, no problem with torture if it is really only terrorists receiving it.

4 No, the risk of innocent ones becoming tortured for false is unacceptable.

5 No the risk that the government abuses torture for it's own agends not dealing with terror alone is too great.

6 No, torture must be considered unacceptable under all circumstances imaginable, even for terrorists. If we suffer terror attacks for that human behavior, then it is the price of having free societies. hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.

Read the options twice to make sure you really understood the sometimes ethically complex implications. I intentionally left out thenoption for multiple choices, since either you torture, or you don't - you can't have it both, and you cannot torture in a humane way. You need to make a choice: Yes, or No. Saying it is jutsified for some reasons, but it should be avoided for other reasons, is no option that can be practised.

The story behind this poll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7185648.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7138144.stm

Bush has excluded the CIA from being prhibited to use waterboarding, but now "US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he were subjected to it. (...) In December, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding. President George W Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which would require the agency to follow the rules adopted by the US Army and abide by the Geneva Conventions, if the Senate passes it. (...) If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it," he said.
CIA officials have been quoted as saying that water-boarding has been used on three prisoners since 2001, including al-Qaeda recruiter Abu Zubaydah, but on nobody since 2003."

I was involved in treatment of torture victims ropughly ten years ago, so my perpsective on it is a very close and personal one. I know what torture can do, I have seen it. It cannot only make people speak, it also can break them open and rip the soul and living will out of the body.

Therefore I am sometimes shocked to see how easy and thoughtless some big mouths sometimes talk about it on TV, or on the streets, and deal with it as if they were talking about wether or not the penalty for jumping the traffic lights should be raised by ten Euros or not, or they make it an issue of binary law-and-order "logic" alone.

Some will also argue wether or not waterboadring is torture. It is my convictzion that making somebody believe that he has to die now by drowning causes agony. If that agony would not be so painful that the subject cooperates, I wonder why it then cooperates indeed (water boarding is said to be extremely effective). Therefore, I conclude that OF COURSE it is torture. Or in other words: "Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese as a prisoner of war, has said that water-boarding is torture: "It no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

Not the perfect option for me, but I choose - 4 - . I don't like it, but I like the other options even less.

[Stealth Hunter]

OTHER - NO, torture is useless.

If someone is restricting my breathing rights with a rope and weights are tied to my feet, I'll tell them whatever they want, even if I'm innocent. Torture really doesn't work; it just gets someone to yell and scream whatever you want to hear.

[Skybird]

Most torture in the world is not for intel gathering, but to break people and sent them back into society as living zombies, to intimidate the rest by serving as an example. Believe me, it works, and it works perfectly.

On information gathering, your info can (and will be) be checked. If it is wrong, they come back and start working on you again. After the first repetion you have learned that. I am sure that sooner or later almost everybody would give up and break down. Only a question of time, and determination of the torturer.

[Stealth Hunter]

Works great for intimidation, that's true, but we had captured Iraqis during the war that we interrogated. They told us pretty much whatever we wanted to hear. Of course, as you said, we checked it and the data was wrong (not to mention irrelevant), so we executed them by firing squad.

[Skybird]

Interrogated, or threatening torture on them, or leave them in the belief to get tortured, or actually tortured? ;)

If the latter, for whatever the reasons, you did not continue to torture them, but executed them. But it was a violation of the Geneva convention anyway.

If it is an innocent being accused of being a terrorist getting "harshly interrogated", and he cannot say something because he does not know anything, and thus only tells what he imagines the other wants to hear, then this would qualify for option 4. A POW also can be put here.

If a terrorist is captured and dies under torture, we simply do not know if he would have broken later on, or wamnted to speak but simply waited too long, or whatever.

Torturing a POW for military information on his side's psotion, is a violation of the Geneva convention anyway. It is meant to give POWs certain protections. So one now would need to argue wether or not the GC makes any sense at all in a situation of defined chaos and maximum barbarism and slaughtering.

[Stealth Hunter]

We did the latter, and the Geneva Convention could go to hell because shooting innocents should earn you and WOULD earn you execution under my command. That was my idea, and I stuck to it. They didn't know anything on what we asked them. They just said whatever we wanted to hear because they knew it would stop. They were useless privates who probably knew more about farming than the proper way to assemble their rifle.

[U49]

Succesful interrogation is incompatible with torture.....

Anybody from the interrogator business saying something else means he/she is incompetent for his job, and there are quite a few!

(Last ones here in germany where those loosers from the police in Frankfurt if I remember right?)

[Skybird]

We did the latter, and the Geneva Convention could go to hell because shooting innocents should earn you and WOULD earn you execution under my command. That was my idea, and I stuck to it. They didn't know anything on what we asked them. They just said whatever we wanted to hear because they knew it would stop. They were useless privates who probably knew more about farming than the proper way to assemble their rifle.

You mix two things up.

You say you shot dead Iraqis for having shot (I assume intentionally) civilians, and you would have done so no matter if they had valid information, or not.

You also say you tortured them, but describe them as unknowing, simple men and useless privates. Why did you torture them, then, if you knew they would not know anything? Obviously not for information, it appears to me. And not for intimidation of the Iraqis, or did you send the abused bodies back to the other side of the front, or arranged them so that they would be found?

Plain revenge, maybe, for them having shot civilians?

That would be an option that I indeed have forgotten: torturing for personal satisfaction.

[Letum]

For the purpose of discussion, I will assume torture is effective. This is debatable, but
not something I am qualified to speculate about.
Further more, I will assume that torture is in it's self a bad thing. I make this assumption
based on the common consensus and my own humble compassion for all of humanity
to some extent.

This in mind, it seams to me that the question can be boiled down to:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Making decisions with this maxim is problematic. It could potentially used to justify
anything, there are problems with predicting outcomes, it sets a dangerous president
for evil acts, and the morality of your ends are most likely highly subjective.

The term "torture" and it's ends are too broad for me to universaly condem it, but
I struggle to find a situation in wich the problems with it would not be significant.

[Skybird]

For the purpose of discussion, I will assume torture is effective. This is debatable, but
not something I am qualified to speculate about.
Further more, I will assume that torture is in it's self a bad thing. I make this assumption
based on the common consensus and my own humble compassion for all of humanity
to some extent.

This in mind, it seams to me that the question can be boiled down to:

hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.
Making decisions with this maxim is problematic. It could potentially used to justify
anything, there are problems with predicting outcomes, it sets a dangerous president
for evil acts, and the morality of your ends are most likely highly subjective.

The term "torture" and it's ends are too broad for me to universaly condem it, but
I struggle to find a situation in wich the problems with it would not be significant.

That is the major moral dilemma here, isn't it. You ask:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Poll option 6 reads:

Hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.

[Tchocky]

I have trouble believing that torture is effective, except where the object is the destruction of a person.
Torture is the worst kind of message a country can send - We do not seek our own security, but your pain and suffering.

Imagine that hundreds of Americans have been killed in three major suicide bombings and a fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured … and taken to Guantanamo…. U.S. intelligence believes that another, larger attack is planned…. How aggressively would you interrogate the captured suspects?
Knowing that such questions are asked in Presidential debates makes me ill.

[U49]

I have trouble believing that torture is effective, except where the object is the destruction of a person.

No need in believing... There are studies by "professionals" who abstained from torture as beeing "unproductive" .... Of course they meant the physical kind or even the threat of physical harm. Instead they worked very hard in turning the victims mindset, believings, ethics, etc. all upside down into a more "favorable" setting.
If you consider such actions in scope ("mental torture") then the same studies advise this indeed as "very productive with great potential".

[Letum]

For the purpose of discussion, I will assume torture is effective. This is debatable, but
not something I am qualified to speculate about.
Further more, I will assume that torture is in it's self a bad thing. I make this assumption
based on the common consensus and my own humble compassion for all of humanity
to some extent.

This in mind, it seams to me that the question can be boiled down to:

hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.
Making decisions with this maxim is problematic. It could potentially used to justify
anything, there are problems with predicting outcomes, it sets a dangerous president
for evil acts, and the morality of your ends are most likely highly subjective.

The term "torture" and it's ends are too broad for me to universaly condem it, but
I struggle to find a situation in wich the problems with it would not be significant.
That is the major moral dilemma here, isn't it. You ask:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Poll option 6 reads:

Hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.

It looks open and shut at first glance, but I don't think it is.

[Tchocky]

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture. As a hypothetical it's a cobbler, difficult to come down on either side.

This is mostly due to the assumption of perfect knowledge, which makes the situation less and less relevant. If you knew this much about the character, you probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

[Letum]

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture. As a hypothetical it's a cobbler, difficult to come down on either side.

This is mostly due to the assumption of perfect knowledge, which makes the situation less and less relevant. If you knew this much about the character, you probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
Oh quite, but even if we don't assume perfect knowlage, or at least no more perfect
than in every day circumstances, it is still a difficult question.

The situation has certinaly occured, all be it in a less stark way.

Jury is out for me for now.

[Skybird]

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.

Dirty Harry, part V, I think. It caused a public uproar in Germany when it was released in the mid-80s. It's not a bomb but a girl kidnapped and burried in a sealed box, running out of air.

What weighs heavier: the rights of the criminal, or the interests of his victim and it's right to live and be healthy? Not torturing a terrorist, or preventing the killing of hundreds? Having both is not possible, that is why I excluded multiple choices. What makes an ethic value saying that torturing is wrong, and that there are too many risks for innocents become victims, so superior to an ethics that says: torturing terror suspects and even accept the risk to torture an innocent or two by misake is morally superior if it saves the lives of hundreds who else would get killed.

If you would have had a word in it, and decided against torturing, and then learn that the investigations failed to find the needed info and now 400 (or 40, or 4000) are dead, what would you say, how would you feel, what would to tell their next of kin?

With this in mind, if you would have decided to allow torture, and then learn that your people caught an innocent one: what would you say, how would you feel?

[Letum]

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.
Dirty Harry, part V, I think. It caused a public uproar in Germany when it was released in the mid-80s. It's not a bomb but a girl kidnapped and burried in a sealed box, running out of air.

What weighs heavier: the rights of the criminal, or the interests of his victim and it's right to live and be healthy? Not torturing a terrorist, or preventing the killing of hundreds? Having both is not possible, that is why I excluded multiple choices. What makes an ethic value saying that torturing is wrong, and that there are too many risks for innocents become victims, so superior to an ethics that says: torturing terror suspects and even accept the risk to torture an innocent or two by misake is morally superior if it saves the lives of hundreds who else would get killed.

If you would have had a word in it, and decided against torturing, and then learn that the investigations failed to find the needed info and now 400 (or 40, or 4000) are dead, what would you say, how would you feel, what would to tell their next of kin?

With this in mind, if you would have decided to allow torture, and then learn that your people caught an innocent one: what would you say, how would you feel?


Indeed.
Even if you are right not to torture, you could be accused of "moral indulgence"; you
have been moral and kept your own hands clean, but at the expense of others.
To switch from utilitarianism to Kantian/rule ethics: is it worse to do a small bad than
it is to do nothing about a greater bad.

However, things get more complicated when we consider that should not really be
discussing whether the decision to torture is right or wrong.
Instead we should be discussing whether it is right to trust other people or the
government to make that decision.

If we decide we should let them make that decision, then we can not complain if
we think they have got it wrong.

[Skybird]

Instead we should be discussing whether it is right to trust other people or the
government to make that decision.

If we decide we should let them make that decision, then we can not complain if
we think they have got it wrong.

True. That scenario would be covered by option 5, i think.

Generalised rules and blueprints obviously do not solve the dilemma. I wonder if the single case examination could be a "moral" solution, done by a gremium that is not an internal government's or service'S affair, and that is accepted in public and countercontrolled by the public. Which would need that the currently apparently robust majority of people being against torture in general and for most principal reasons, would need to rethink the issue. Law-free spaces wothout any countercontrol like guantanamo of course cannot be the solution, or extraordinary prisoner deliveries into countries where torture is not forbidden.

Although I have seen what terrible conseqeunces torture (for just breaking people) can cause, i rate the interests of victims as higher than those of the criminal perpetrators, and that on a very principal level. So eventually I can imagine to accept the use of torture, but not on the basis of general rules, but only after close analysis of the single case in question by a gremium that is not under exclusive control of the government and it's services, by that avoiding any risks of automatic processes getting started once somebody finds himself trapped in the system. The risk of trapping an innocent still remains, that'S why I cannot imagine to accept torture as a standard procedure, and it should be reserved only for most extreme example and single, rare excepötions from the rule, and when there is reasonable assumption that torture indeed could be of help. ragaridng the subject's personality and character and biography.

And even then it does not feel well to accept it.

And hopefull it never will.

as long as it is not like this, I will stick to option 4, and run the risk of causing the suffering of many more innocents becoming victims by that. A real dilemma.

What I do not like is the hypocrisy. In europe, intel data from American sources of which it was known that it was won by "harsh interrogations", nevertheless was used in terror prevention. At the same time one was pointing finger at the US and complained that they were using these procedures. You either will the outcome, than you will the means as well, or you refuse both.

[Seadogs]

No, I only have a problem with people being too liberal with the term "Torture". I had to stand for an hour "TORTURE!", Someone ate something religiously offensive for lunch in my field of view "TORTURE!" I ran out of TP and did not get anymore for an hour "TORTURE!". You get the idea, but thanks to our, listen to the label not look at the content, society these days it's happening.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

No need in believing... There are studies by "professionals" who abstained from torture as beeing "unproductive" .... Of course they meant the physical kind or even the threat of physical harm. Instead they worked very hard in turning the victims mindset, believings, ethics, etc. all upside down into a more "favorable" setting.
If you consider such actions in scope ("mental torture") then the same studies advise this indeed as "very productive with great potential".

About those studies, it isn't like I disbelieve their existence, but frankly I'm interested in reading one if it is available on the web. Are there any?

For the answer, I nevertheless started from the assumption that torture is effective if applied correctly. As a utilitarian, I don't think I can answer 6, so I answered 4.

To add more nuance, I might allow torture under an unrealistic ruleset that went roughly as follows. A government interrogator (for example), if convinced of torture's efficacy in his instance, may apply for a special waiver. If approved (based on the potential value of torture in this case), then the interrogator may use torture, but if the process fails to deliver information that is verified to be true - thus the torture is clearly useless, both the interrogator and the waiver issuer is automatically proportinately punished without trial and the case is publicized so the public may judge constantly how torture serves the society. The important part is that the interrogator does not have a prayer of getting away scot-free for using torture unless it brings result - which presumably will make all interrogators and others think very hard before using it.

Since such unrealistic schemes will never be approved, I'll just have to go with 4.

[Jimbuna]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

[Letum]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Frankly, thats daft. I would like everyone to give me cakes. That doesn't mean that
I should give cakes to killers.

"Behave in the way you think everyone should behave" is somewhat better, but it does not
make questions any less complex.

[DeepIron]

That doesn't mean that I should give cakes to killers.
Well, yes, it does. Even though it's not what we would like to do. And certainly not what society has *conditioned* us to do.

Society has it's laws, and God has His. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it can place an individuals moral behavior at odds with what society expects. Fortunately, there are still those who respond to the higher law and give us all pause for thought:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS03/801100414/1005
http://m.greenvilleonline.com/news.jsp?key=62190
http://www.asianimage.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1673515.mostviewed.brother_forgive s_killer.php

[Jimbuna]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Frankly, thats daft. I would like everyone to give me cakes. That doesn't mean that
I should give cakes to killers.

"Behave in the way you think everyone should behave" is somewhat better, but it does not
make questions any less complex.

Let's not end up in that senseless position of 'two wrongs make a right'. If you lower your standards and subsequent actions to those of your opponent you quickly end up in the pointless position we witness now in areas such as Iraq.

Torture is at best barbaric and inhumane, and the sooner everybody realises it and convinces their opponents it is not to be condoned ot practiced....all the better for everyone.

[SUBMAN1]

Whats in question here is the definition of torture. Some would argue that simply being locked up is torture. Others would think the definition wouldn't apply unless someone fingers are getting twisted off. So this argument here is, well, not an argument at all without a proper definition, and that defintion changes from person to person, to country to country.

-S

[Skybird]

Skybird's quick instant definition of "torture":

An intentional measurement of threatening and/or carrying out measures that inflict massive physical and/or psychic pain and/or agony and/or fear for ones' own life or that of third persons, with the intention to win information, to break the individual for this purpose itself, or to gain satisfaction for the torturer in terms of a satisfying stimulus (sadism, psychic pervertion, revenge, etc.)

[Letum]

That doesn't mean that I should give cakes to killers.
Well, yes, it does. Even though it's not what we would like to do. And certainly not what society has *conditioned* us to do.

Society has it's laws, and God has His. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it can place an individuals moral behavior at odds with what society expects. Fortunately, there are still those who respond to the higher law and give us all pause for thought:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS03/801100414/1005
http://m.greenvilleonline.com/news.jsp?key=62190
http://www.asianimage.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1673515.mostviewed.brother_forgive s_killer.php


I am not saying we shoul not act compassionatly to all.
However, neither should we reward evil acts with cake.

Compasion, yes.
Cake, no.

[DeepIron]

However, neither should we reward evil acts with cake.
Not even "devils food" cake"? ;) Or, how about Twinkies? Personally, I can't think of any confection more evil than Hostess Twinkies... And I'd consider being forced to eat Twinkies to be a form of torture...:dead:

[Stealth Hunter]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).

[Fish]

I wonder who voted three?

Mine vote± 6

[Jimbuna]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).

...and your point is :hmm:

[Skybird]

I wonder who voted three?

Mine vote± 6
the name list will become available once the poll has ended in nine days, I think. At least I have ticked the box to make it a public vote, as i said in the introduction.

[Tchocky]

I wonder who voted three?

Mine vote± 6 the name list will become available once the poll has ended in nine days, I think. At least I have ticked the box to make it a public vote, as i said in the introduction.
Just click on one of the underlined numbers and you'll get the names.

Then you can make your List ;)

[CCIP]

Ultimately, a society which, when confronted with fear, is willing to sacrifice the notions of human rights that it took so long to arrive at and which it prides on so much is, to me, not a society worth protecting in the first place.

To me personally, it's completely unacceptable. I see scenarios where it would be strategically acceptable, but then a society which condones it through supposedly democratic apparatus has no right to call itself anything but medieval and barbaric. :hmm:

[Skybird]

Ultimately, a society which, when confronted with fear, is willing to sacrifice the notions of human rights that it took so long to arrive at and which it prides on so much is, to me, not a society worth protecting in the first place.

To me personally, it's completely unacceptable. I see scenarios where it would be strategically acceptable, but then a society which condones it through supposedly democratic apparatus has no right to call itself anything but medieval and barbaric. :hmm:
That is quite strong in words. So let me play advocatus diaboli and ask if you think the last sentence in option 6 - hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves - is less barbaric and medieval to accept!? Or is saving the lives of these hundred victims just of "strategical advantage", and no value in itself? The scenario assumes that torture would have raised the information needed to prevent this massacre.

Are you sure it is as easy as you make it sounding? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Just click on one of the underlined numbers and you'll get the names.
Ah...! :) It works!

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird's quick instant definition of "torture":

An intentional measurement of threatening and/or carrying out measures that inflict massive physical and/or psychic pain and/or agony and/or fear for ones' own life or that of third persons, with the intention to win information, to break the individual for this purpose itself, or to gain satisfaction for the torturer in terms of a satisfying stimulus (sadism, psychic pervertion, revenge, etc.)Thats the problem - some people would view the act of being put in jail for life to fall under what you describe.

-S

[CCIP]

Not nearly as easy, no. But firstly I think anyone trying to justify it should permanently lose their moral pedestal, and secondly I think we need to be a little bit more responsible about the aims and values of the society in the context of the world we live in. I'm a little worried when a society armed with nuclear weapons is essentially willing to go back on its humanitarian principles. What would we be fighting for then? The rights of irresponsible populations of well-armed nations to eat, sleep and have sex?

If it was a direct threat... but then as I say, it's an extreme scenario you're proposing. It's inherently unlikely and certainly not worth implementing in principle. In reality, of course, when push comes to shove... things will happen. But the judgment on that would need to be made individually and not in principle. If someone indeed does have a terrorist in their hands who could give away info leading to hundreds of people being saved, it's on their conscience to act. They can't come back and say that I let them do it, nor should they be able to come back and say that the society as a whole let them do it. Then perhaps they'll act more responsibly and with the weight of the decision in their hands. But giving anyone a blanket license to break essential human rights is absolutely unacceptable, in any circumstances.

[Reaves]

Certain circumstances may require such acts but to do it regulary is surely wrong. The type of situation that would require torture is so unlikely I can't even give a good example that would be likely to happen. Perhaps in a hostage situation where authorities have limited time to locate the victim.

It's sad that I think we live in a world where torture has a place but i'm afraid that's how it is.

And to restrict it to terrorists is wrong. How about kidnappers or criminally insane people?


The problem is, i'd like to say #6 but we don't and never have lived in that perfect world people. We ARE barbaric, we act like animals. Some of us still have compasion though.

I will gladly take a sinners life in trade for an innocent one.

[VipertheSniper]

Skybird's quick instant definition of "torture":

An intentional measurement of threatening and/or carrying out measures that inflict massive physical and/or psychic pain and/or agony and/or fear for ones' own life or that of third persons, with the intention to win information, to break the individual for this purpose itself, or to gain satisfaction for the torturer in terms of a satisfying stimulus (sadism, psychic pervertion, revenge, etc.)Thats the problem - some people would view the act of being put in jail for life to fall under what you describe.

-S

I don't think you lock someone up for life without having gained the information beforehand to do so, I mean enough information to convict him of the crime in a fair trial, and if a criminal gets locked up for life, he is receiving his punishment. I mean, I wouldn't want convicted murderers roam the streets say after 5 years in jail, hell it might have been a crime of passion, but who's to say it won't happen again? Whatelse should we do with them, death sentence? You can never be 100% sure, so for me this wouldn't be an option. Maybe the days in prison will be monotonous and boring, but unless you're afraid of small rooms, I can hardly think of this as torture. I mean he is convicted of a crime, a suspect is not, if I lock up the suspect without trial and leave him unknowing of when he'll get out again, just to get information (as was done in the Eastern Block, along with sleep deprivation), then yes it's torture.

[Bewolf]

To come directly to the question at hand.

No.

Torture is no option. If we torture, we are not better then the oponent. If that means risking your own life for the risk of war or terror, I am willing to take it. Hundrets of thousand ppl put their lives at stake and often enough lost it to fight for human rights and dignity throughout the centuries.

It all comes down to the question of whats more important. Values, or life. If the answer is life, then everything's exuseable for something thats ending nevertheless sooner or later.

[STEED]

Are we talking about physical & mental torture as one or separate?

Torture can be many things, for example your restrained under a dripping tap that drips on your head which is not really physical but can be after a number of hours mental torture.

[seafarer]

I have two reasons for voting against torture under any circumstances.

1. If I condone it for my own reasons, I have no basis for criticizing others who do it for theirs. So, then, torture, by anyone for any reason, becomes defensible.

2. In order for torture to occur, you need people willing to carry it out. That in turn means that a society that tortures people provides a haven for those who are good and skilled at committing torture. One can even see where it encourages such people to work to develop their craft to the utmost. I do not want to live in a society that preserves such people and gives them security to practice their craft. Those people are just as undesirable as those they torture, to my mind.

Walking the moral high ground means exposing yourself to risk, that's a given. I understand that, but I find the alternative requires me to adopt a stance that I would rather not live with. So my choice is made by that.

P.S. as others have said, I too do not feel that torture is a reliable nor effective means of intelligence gathering. Given that, my two reasons above don't even enter into it - it's a waste of time, effort and resources that could be better used gathering more reliable information in the first place.

[Konovalov]

I ordered option 6 with special fried rice, home delivery. ;)

[Fish]

[ So let me play advocatus diaboli and ask if you think the last sentence in option 6 - hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves - is less barbaric and medieval to accept!?

Isn't that a stroman? :hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Do you mean a straw man, one set up just so you can knock him down again? Possibly. Possibly, but it could happen. I voted #6, but with reservations. Of course if my child's life were on the line I would do it without hesitation, which makes me more than just a little hypocritical.

In the 1988 presidential debate Michael Dukakis was asked if he would change his mind and support the death penalty if his own wife were raped and murdered. Though on the face of it he stuck to his guns, his answer was like he was reading from his script, and the transcript doesn't describe the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look on his face at the time. Personally I would have respected him more if he had said something like "Yes, I would still be against the death penalty, because I wouldn't want to fry for what I did to the ****** after I caught up with him!"

[Skybird]

Stroman...? What is that? Both my printed and my PC dictionary fail on that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Stroman...? What is that? Both my printed and my PC dictionary fail on that.

I think he said "strawman" as in "strawman attack".

[Sailor Steve]

I think I said that in my post just above.

[Skybird]

Don't knew that phrase. If I understand it correctly now (strawman is translated as Strohmann or Scheingegner, in German it more often is used as "bait"), Fsh asked if I have added that sentence to option 6 to make it attackable to chose that option.

well, that was not my intention, but a consequence. Option 6 is a moral dilemma in my opinion, and if you rule out torturing for principal reasons, in that scenario that means to eventually pay for that by willing a high number of innocents being murdered. that is my primary reason to vote not for option 6. On the other hand, using torture ma save these victims for getting killed, but as some have said will serve as an example formtohers to torture - maybe for different motives - as well, which again leaves you with a dileamma addti0onal to the dileamma of having to risk abuse of torture and inncoents become subject to it.

I find myself unable to make a general stand of pro or contra on this issue, that's why I said somehwereabove that it should be judged and weighted on the actual case at question. Which leaves it open to the risk of arbitrariness - which again leaves you with a moral dilemma.

As I said in the introduction: this is a tough one. I could even understand if somebody would want to vote for all six options simultaneously.


Sailor Steve,
you posted your posting while I was typing mine. ;) The time difference reads two minutes.

[August]

Skybird:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Stealth Hunter]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).

...and your point is :hmm:


And my point is I value my life over theirs...:yep:

[Skybird]

Skybird:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Thanks. In German a Strohmann means just a (unimportant) conctact person one party is exposing to hide it's own real identity.

[kiwi_2005]

Just click on one of the underlined numbers and you'll get the names.


Nice tip! Not even i knew that. Just went and had a look now.

[August]

Thanks. In German a Strohmann means just a (unimportant) conctact person one party is exposing to hide it's own real identity.
Assuming it's not for the purpose of taking blame, we'd call that a "front man". If it is for taking blame we'd call him a "scapegoat".

[Happy Times]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).

...and your point is :hmm:


And my point is I value my life over theirs...:yep:

I thought you were a pilot? Bloody war from what ive seen and read.
Ive been reading the areas history from the times of Cyrus the Great,
funny how little things change and 2000-3000 years feels like a short time.:hmm:

[Fish]

Stroman...? What is that? Both my printed and my PC dictionary fail on that.

I think he said "strawman" as in "strawman attack".

Yeah, strawman it is. :yep:

A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#_note-book) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#_note-book) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Skybird]

Yeah, strawman it is. :yep:

Okay, then I have answered your initial hint or question in posting #50.

[Heibges]

As a former officer in the United States Army, I will tell you strait up that in the Officers Basic Course, in Military Ethics, you will be instructed that torture is absolutely something that an American Army officer will not condone.

And the reason is it saves lives.

Take the moronic example from the presidential debate.

Would you torture a suspect to get info on a terrorist attack?

According to the avowed ethics of the United States Army Officer Corps, the answer is no, because you will create far more "terrorists" who will then plan future attacks.

Many, many, many lives have been saved over the years because folks just surrender to us because we are the good guys. There going to get a blanket, an MRE and some cigarettes.

But I don't expect the cowardly draftdodgers in our current adminstration to understand military ethics.

[Stealth Hunter]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).

...and your point is :hmm:


And my point is I value my life over theirs...:yep:

I thought you were a pilot? Bloody war from what ive seen and read.
Ive been reading the areas history from the times of Cyrus the Great,
funny how little things change and 2000-3000 years feels like a short time.:hmm:

Later on, yes. At the time, no, I wasn't. I only flew for about 6 months, though, and that was riding shotgun.

[Fish]

Yeah, strawman it is. :yep:

Okay, then I have answered your initial hint or question in posting #50.

Roger.

[Fish]

As a former officer in the United States Army, I will tell you strait up that in the Officers Basic Course, in Military Ethics, you will be instructed that torture is absolutely something that an American Army officer will not condone.

And the reason is it saves lives.

Take the moronic example from the presidential debate.

Would you torture a suspect to get info on a terrorist attack?

According to the avowed ethics of the United States Army Officer Corps, the answer is no, because you will create far more "terrorists" who will then plan future attacks.

Many, many, many lives have been saved over the years because folks just surrender to us because we are the good guys. There going to get a blanket, an MRE and some cigarettes.

But I don't expect the cowardly draftdodgers in our current adminstration to understand military ethics.

Heibges,
That is not ethics, that's just calculation, there must be more to tell about USA militairy ethics I think.
Please do, I am realy interested.

[Skybird]

The poll is closed since today. Thank you all for participating, and keeping the tone civil. The latter is worth to be mentioned with such a potentially inflamatory topic.

The voter's namelist is visible when you left-click on any of the numbers saying how many votes the option got.