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.

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.

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

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58]YouTube - Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)[/ame]

^I saw that before

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

Does torture actually work?[/color] 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.

 

 

 

Good questions raised here. Torture can make the one subjected to it fabricate a story to avoid more torture - a story that the torturers would like to have. I admit that sometimes, torture might lead to important information that can prevent a disaster, but I think that it will also lead to fabricated stories that lead to mistakes being made.

 

I remember seeing a documentary once - during World War II the future winners were convinced (had received information) that Germany was working on a new bomb (like atomic bomb) and that Germany was nearly there. That led to the atomic bomb. So fabricated information can have long-reaching effects.

 

When information is given by a tortured prisoner - how to know when it is the truth and when it is a fabricated story to avoid more of the same?

 

So I am against TORTURE.

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.

 

 

 

That's a very good question and one I don't think anyone can have an answer for, you're right there could very easily be abuses of power, the thing is no one will ever know about them because the people responsible for torturing someone would cover it up.

If a country practices torture, then everything is against human rights.

and then he must be afraid of a government that has your life in your hands. all prisoners ready to be sacrificed for money and power, not peace and respect for life in a normal world.

 

there is a saying: who says the evil done and everything will turn against.

watch what is happening in some countries.

 

Bush did business with Bin Laden in the past does not surprise place bombs on U.S. finance.

 

 

Bin Laden in the name of religion ? if God exists he will make his own justice

 

Bin Laden in the name of religion ? if God exists he will make his own justice

 

And if he doesn't, bin Laden gets away with his atrocities with a quick death and nothing more.

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.

 

 

point taken.

What torture is acceptable, if you think it is acceptable?

 

Here are some examples of American torture techniques used in the 2000's, not even to obtain information. Simply done to prisoners. I put this here because I feel if people are going to stand by torture then they should be specific in what they mean by it. I use these examples as many people see America as a progressive society, and I feel many posters on here would imagine America to have some form of 'class' (if that is at all possible - I don't think it is) when it comes to torture.

 

 

According to Donald Rumsfeld, many more pictures and videotapes of the abuse at Abu Ghraib exist. Photos and videos were revealed by the Pentagon to lawmakers in a private viewing on 12 May 2004. Lawmakers disagreed over whether the additional photos were worse than those already released, with Senator Ron Wyden saying the new pictures were "significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated [...] Take the worst case and multiply it several times over." while Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher said the pictures were "not dramatically different". It was speculated that they depict dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, women forced to expose their breasts, hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and violent sexual acts.

 

The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005, reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:

 

 

Urinating on detainees

Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly

Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton

Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees

Sodomization of detainees with a baton

Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.

 

 

 

 

In her video diary, a prison guard said that prisoners were shot for minor misbehavior, and claimed to have had venomous snakes bite prisoners, sometimes resulting in their deaths. By her own admission, that guard was "in trouble" for having thrown rocks at the detainees. Hashem Muhsen, one of the naked men in the human pyramid photo, said they were also made to crawl around the floor naked and that U.S. soldiers rode them like donkeys. After being released in January 2004, Muhsen became an Iraqi police officer.

 

 

It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military.

 

 

One detainee claimed he was sodomized. The Taguba Report found the claim ("Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick") to be credible.

 

 

 

Contains graphic images but is allowed on Wikipedia! Don't look if you don't want to see. Blurred out images but it is very clear what is going on.

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

^It does make it tough. I mean to be honest I've known about that place, but reading more about it now and seeing pictures makes me disgusted and ashamed not only to what was done but the fact that you have those soldiers smiling and having photos taken of themselves as though they're on holiday. Also the fact that it was not just a few cases but so many makes it even worse. As you brought it up and also looking at these images and reading, it really I guess gives more insight to it, but also I guess helps to disprove that this country isn't fully sophisticated by doing things like that.

 

 

I think that if there is an acceptable form to use, then perhaps invent some sort of truth-serum or use some kind of psychoactive drugs or induce sleep deprivation or something. I don't really know.

 

The whole physical violence and degradation of human dignity is not something I'm really for especially in terms of that Abu Ghraib.

 

 

At the same time Gautama brought up an interesting story and a topic I wanted to bring up. I mean in that scenario the police knew that that guy kidnapped the child and knew of the whereabouts. However he was so sick and twisted that he refused to talk and tell. Now I'm not trying to fully justify the use of torture, like I said if anything it should only be used in most extreme scenarios (though of course then again it makes it difficult to judge what is extreme). But if the person withholding information is a cruel son of a bitch who has no remorse whatsoever then doesn't it make it I guess a little more acceptable?

 

I've been trying to find the right words for that paragraph above but it's tough. I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm all for torture (like I said only extreme cases), but I guess if anything I'd feel it to be easier or better to do it to someone who is cruel or ruthless, rather than a potential innocent person. I hope you guys get an idea of what I mean or am trying to get at.

 

 

 

The one question I guess I just have to ask people that are 100% against it, is what do you do if you have hit a roadblock for information? Or do you think that there could be any form of "advanced interrogation" that might be somewhat acceptable that doesn't degrade human life as such in Abu Gharib?

It's interesting how it went from terrorist activity to an isolated incident involving two people and you seemed more likely to back torture on the isolated incident than the bin Laden situation which was about terrorism as that was a case where we 'definitely knew'. What else would you allow it for? This makes me think that you are definitely for it in the right circumstances (and therefore for it), and I'm not condemning you for it, I just find it interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point, I may have misunderstood.

 

You can't legislate for these things. There are too many cases that are too obscure, with all the tiny parts to them, to pass any kind of law covering all of them, if the result is that a human being would be subject to torture. Any attempt to legislate for them will lead to it being exploited.

 

It freaks me out, possibly more than the psychopaths that torture people, that people in authority give the go ahead for these things to go ahead. People who aren't psychotic, and instead run nation states as supreme representatives.

 

I also don't buy into being 'absolutely certain' of something, which is why I am against the death penalty.

 

It is such a difficult topic, but i think when it comes down to it I can't imagine a human being treated in that way regardless of their crimes. For those involved personally, maybe (since if they had my child hostage I would do anything to save them), but by an organisation meant to police the people should try not personalise too much of what they do (regardless of the extremity of the situation), nor should they have the psyche to carry out such atrocities if they are supposed to be protecting us. If somebody can torture a human then I do not trust them to protect me.

I think this is the heaviest topic I've posted in.

Enjoying it (in a way), and it's really had me thinking.

I read a TIME article about using other options besides physical torture. It said that most of the time, torture was most likely to make the person much less cooperative, and, like you guys have already said in this thread, the person could just fabricate a story.

 

The other option is interrogation that relies more on psychological tricks, like playing with emotions or lying.

 

Here's a little snippet from the article:

 

Ultimately, every interrogation is a cat-and-mouse game, and seasoned interrogators have more than one way to coax, cajole or trick their captives into yielding information. Lying and dissimulation are commonplace. When a high-ranking insurgent [the prisoner] spoke of his spendthrift wife, Alexander [the interrogator] said he sympathized because he too had a wife who loved to shop. The two men bonded over this common "problem"; the insurgent never knew that Alexander is single. The Army manual even includes a "false flag" technique: interrogators may pretend to be of other nationalities if they feel a captive will not cooperate with Americans.

 

The article is a bit long, but if you want to check it out, go here.

 

These techniques may not be 100% effective, but I personally think they would be a much better, more humane option than torture. :\