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 guess for me I was more for the isolated case because in that scenario the selection of people is limited down to a very few amount, so in that case the chance for error is narrowed. With Bin Laden, there are so many people that might or might not have legit info so the area for error is greatly reduced.

 

 

The point you bring up is an interesting point in that there are so many isolated cases, or blurry/sketchy info that it makes it difficult to judge when it is justified (if that's even the right word). I guess in some sense it seems to be an issue of all or nothing, because how can you really define the line where it becomes acceptable? If that's the case then I'd be against torture completely. But like I said, I think it is something that only in the most extreme cases should be considered, much like how I brought up how war should be the last option.

 

I can understand that and it would make sense to be freaked out about it. I mean the state is there to protect you so I guess if you lose that protection than how can you really feel any trust or security.

 

 

But yeah I mean I think it's a difficult topic or issue to resolve. I mean as you mentioned if it was say your child that was being held hostage or something I'm sure you'd do whatever was possible to get him/her back. But at the same time peoples own rights have to be taken into consideration.

 

 

What about the topics that I brought up? What are your thoughts on them, in the sense of inventing a legitimate "truth-serum" or the use of psychoactive drugs or sleep deprivation or some other non-physical option?

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:

 

 

 

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. :\

 

I would be more for the use of this as opposed to torture, though of course as you said they are not 100% effective.

I'm unsure of the ability to create a truth serum and who knows how it's use could be abused if it ended in the wrong hands.

 

I think that the example that dry_pretzels used was a good one, as it is bonding with the person rather than exerting force physically or mentally to horrific extents.

 

Sleep deprivation wouldn't work in these situations as I'm guessing that the scenarios we are discussing have time very much at the forefront of importance.

 

 

Some people got arrested on terrorism charges yesterday in this country for taking pictures near a nuclear plant. They might be terrorists, they might not be, but with things as tense as they are now if torture was allowed I think that it would be allowed to be used on them (I'm pretty sure as we speak bad things will be happening to them. To what extent I have no idea). Imagine if you were innocent and taking pictures, but because you were of a certain race or religion, or simply looked suspicious. It's something that can happen. I know you don't want it used in these circumstances and this is not what you are talking about, but I feel that with the threat as it is right now, and some people in authorities obvious lack of empathy, that cases like these will result in torture. It's happened whilst torture has barely been accepted, imagine what would happen behind closed doors if the floodgates opened with the law behind them.

I would be more for the use of this as opposed to torture, though of course as you said they are not 100% effective.

 

But neither is torture.

 

What do you make of psychological torture, in terms of say telling them that their loved ones have been captured and are going to die if they don't tell?

 

Baring in mind I honestly believe that if you said 'in extreme circumstances' that it would then be abused and used in situations where the person was innocent.

I'm unsure of the ability to create a truth serum and who knows how it's use could be abused if it ended in the wrong hands.

 

I think that the example that dry_pretzels used was a good one, as it is bonding with the person rather than exerting force physically or mentally to horrific extents.

 

Sleep deprivation wouldn't work in these situations as I'm guessing that the scenarios we are discussing have time very much at the forefront of importance.

 

 

Some people got arrested on terrorism charges yesterday in this country for taking pictures near a nuclear plant. They might be terrorists, they might not be, but with things as tense as they are now if torture was allowed I think that it would be allowed to be used on them (I'm pretty sure as we speak bad things will be happening to them. To what extent I have no idea). Imagine if you were innocent and taking pictures, but because you were of a certain race or religion, or simply looked suspicious. It's something that can happen. I know you don't want it used in these circumstances and this is not what you are talking about, but I feel that with the threat as it is right now, and some people in authorities obvious lack of empathy, that cases like these will result in torture. It's happened whilst torture has barely been accepted, imagine what would happen behind closed doors if the floodgates opened with the law behind them.

 

Yeah... I see what you mean. When it's a matter of time things need to be I guess expedited. I do agree that bonding or talking or manipulating the person you're interrogating is a better way about doing things.

 

That's an interesting point and unfortunately the way things are. Just because of how someone looks automatically makes them suspicious. I mean I hate to say it but we've all done it especially after 9/11. Does it make it right? No. The thing is that in general people should I guess be suspicious overall and not to just a specific race. I mean I remember seeing on the news a few times of people planning on doing terrorist attacks and if you looked at them they weren't your stereotypical looking terrorist (not to sound like an ass by saying that), but just a regular Caucasian male that for all you know could've been your next door neighbor. It's just like WWII or even the Cold War when people were judged for stereotypes on how they looked.

 

But neither is torture.

 

What do you make of psychological torture, in terms of say telling them that their loved ones have been captured and are going to die if they don't tell?

 

Baring in mind I honestly believe that if you said 'in extreme circumstances' that it would then be abused and used in situations where the person was innocent.

 

I don't know. I mean the thing is that from an initial standpoint I think it would be better because physical torture seems just worse. However you don't really know the long term effects. I mean for example there are many soldiers that perhaps had very few injuries or none at all, but suffer red from shell shock or other psychological issues for a few years or even decades.

 

Unfortunately as you said it would probably be abused.

 

 

That's why I feel when it comes to the well being or another human being that the research should be done before hand on the persons background at least. It is really difficult because there can always be issues.

 

 

 

This topic wouldn't even exist if humanity put their differences aside and tried to actually get along :lol:

 

 

This topic wouldn't even exist if humanity put their differences aside and tried to actually get along :lol:

 

Yup.

It feels like I'm coming after the battle and with nothing more to say since all the points I could have made have been made by others already but I'm still going to give my opinion. :disappointed: haha

 

I couldn't be more against it. I think no exception can be made, ever. A human being should never ever be tortured, that is as simple as that. And I'm quite shocked that most people here don't see that and seem to be naïve enough to think that torture could ever be controlled. Extreme circumstances? What a joke !! That's such a subjective and dangerous notion. And anyway, we're talking about official action, authorities action done in the state name ! I can't understand how can some people not see how wrong it would be to allow torture regarding fondamental and basic dignity principles. That is beyond me.

Also, Mike, you said you thought it would be ok if it was done in extreme circumstances AND towards someone that would surely be guilty. Well, that is technically impossible. You can't even always be certain of the guiltyness of a person after a trial so how could anybody be sure when the torture would happen since it would be to obtain evidence of crime, in the investigation phase, when the person is only suspected !

One last thing I'd really be interesting in knowing, have anyones opinions changed throughout the thread? :)

I think that in order to warrant torture, the person should be proven to actually know the information that is trying to be extracted. And only in extremely serious/important situations.

 

I hate the idea of someone being tortured for information that they do not even know.

It feels like I'm coming after the battle and with nothing more to say since all the points I could have made have been made by others already but I'm still going to give my opinion. :disappointed: haha

 

I couldn't be more against it. I think no exception can be made, ever. A human being should never ever be tortured, that is as simple as that. And I'm quite shocked that most people here don't see that and seem to be naïve enough to think that torture could ever be controlled. Extreme circumstances? What a joke !! That's such a subjective and dangerous notion. And anyway, we're talking about official action, authorities action done in the state name ! I can't understand how can some people not see how wrong it would be to allow torture regarding fondamental and basic dignity principles. That is beyond me.

Also, Mike, you said you thought it would be ok if it was done in extreme circumstances AND towards someone that would surely be guilty. Well, that is technically impossible. You can't even always be certain of the guiltyness of a person after a trial so how could anybody be sure when the torture would happen since it would be to obtain evidence of crime, in the investigation phase, when the person is only suspected !

 

You as everyone else has made great points against it. The more that you guys discuss it and bring it up the more I am against it. However I still feel in some circumstances it may need to be used. I'm just saying say if you caught like Bin Laden's #2 and he was withholding critical information no matter how much you tried to talk to him reasonably.

 

I'm not saying it should be constantly used. I just feel in some cases it might have to be used. I mean if say you had a child and they were kidnapped, wouldn't you do whatever it took to ensure their safety?

 

 

I think that in order to warrant torture, the person should be proven to actually know the information that is trying to be extracted. And only in extremely serious/important situations.

 

I hate the idea of someone being tortured for information that they do not even know.

 

Well that's the point I'm trying to make. I think that so much background information has to be run on the person, and they have to be nearly positive that what they're doing is to a person they know has what they need. Like i've mentioned so many times before I think that the decision making that goes into doing something like this needs to be the similar frame of mind as of that of going to war in that all other options have been exhausted

You as everyone else has made great points against it. The more that you guys discuss it and bring it up the more I am against it.

Yey !!

However I still feel in some circumstances it may need to be used.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo. :(

I'm just saying say if you caught like Bin Laden's #2 and he was withholding critical information no matter how much you tried to talk to him reasonably.

 

I'm not saying it should be constantly used. I just feel in some cases it might have to be used. I mean if say you had a child and they were kidnapped, wouldn't you do whatever it took to ensure their safety?

The problem is that you're looking at it from the wrong angle. If my child was kidnapped, of course I'd do whatever it takes to ensure their safety BUT I'm no state authority ! And that's where the big difference is. It very important to make sure that the police, the judges, etc aren't personnally involved in whatever case they're trying to resolve. Otherwise it would lead to impartiality. Same with Bin Laden #2. And I realise what the consequences can be. But nothing justifies torture, not even Bin Laden. The people that torture people (even if they say it is for their country, to save lives, etc) are criminals to me. They are no better than terrorists themselves. Who do they think they are to do that? And then they'll claim you must condemn torture and murders but how do they do that? In doing the exact same thing. They should just end up in prison like the criminals themselves.

 

nearly[/color][/b] positive that what they're doing is to a person they know has what they need. Like i've mentioned so many times before I think that the decision making that goes into doing something like this needs to be the similar frame of mind as of that of going to war in that all other options have been exhausted

 

There. You said it yourself ! "Nearly positive". That means you can never be completely positive. The point is, the tortured person would be tortured because they'd pretend not to know the information the police wants. How can you know they know it for sure from there? I understand that in many cases, it can appear as completely obvious but I've seen cases where absolutely everything seemed to be evidence against someone but then some new element came into the picture and showed they were innocents after all. Then you can tell me that the person could be like "I know the information you want but I won't tell you". As unnerving as it can be, I think you still need to keep trying to obtain this information without any torture. And if you don't obtain it in the end then be it. You'd have done all that was in your power to obtain it. Torture shouldn't even considered an option. You can't resolve violence with violence. And anyway, nothing guarantees that torture would "work". Some terrorists are willing to die to kills others so I don't see how they wouldn't be willing to be tortured as well. Some would probably still lie under torture. And think of the actual acts of torture, like what Greg pointed out. Imagine the people that do it. Do you think you could live with yourself after doing such horrible things? Do you think those people are good people? They personnally disgust me.

I think that in order to warrant torture, the person should be proven to actually know the information that is trying to be extracted. And only in extremely serious/important situations.

 

I hate the idea of someone being tortured for information that they do not even know.

 

You'd need a trial for that then.

We don't have time for a trial.

And I doubt it would be a fair trial anyway.

Wowza, Alice nailed it.

Yes, I agree with Alice.

I'm disgusted at the thought that a nation that claims to be one of the most progressive and just nations in the world, still uses these methods (but I think I've said that somewhere else already). How can any nation that approves torture as a means of interrogation claim to be progressive?

There are always other ways.

 

One thing one has to keep in mind is the extreme and blind obedience to their leaders that terrorists have. They are willing to die to serve their cause, so they are most likely willing to go through torture for it too. There's no guarantee that any obtained information is correct. People say a lot of things in extreme situations. Torture is in no way a means to gain trustworthy information

Yes, I agree with Alice.

I'm disgusted at the thought that a nation that claims to be one of the most progressive and just nations in the world, still uses these methods (but I think I've said that somewhere else already). How can any nation that approves torture as a means of interrogation claim to be progressive?

There are always other ways.

> Sounds like we have one heck of a schizophrenic country then! I think some people just believe that to get things done, one has to get rough and be tough - which has it's place in combat, but is both ineffective and destructive of the very things we stand for here when it comes to suspects in investigations. Smart interrogation (where reason is used and incentives offered) works much better and gets us much better information than does torture. Personally, it seems that torture is used by those who enjoy hurting others - it's a power fix, an ego trip, and a deviation into barbarism. An outward expression and action of someone's inner frustrations, and for some a twisted desire to act out some awful thoughts which have come into their minds. Truly, is there any justification for the gory things that have been done to other human beings? Who comes up with these nasty things, and why? The U.S. was founded on principles of protecting individuals from abuses of the state, so for part of the U.S. government to sanction and engage in torture is un-American, defiles basic human rights, and thus defiles the very principles we base our nation on. And as soon as torture is o.k.'ed, then all sorts of bad behaviors get the green light, including illegal wire taps and communications searches, blowing up of entire cities to get a few enemy combatants (think Fallujah in Iraq), and anything else deemed "necessary" by those few in power. In the end, by using torture we loose credibility in the world, and create more enemies than we gain friends.

One thing one has to keep in mind is the extreme and blind obedience to their leaders that terrorists have. They are willing to die to serve their cause, so they are most likely willing to go through torture for it too. There's no guarantee that any obtained information is correct. People say a lot of things in extreme situations. Torture is in no way a means to gain trustworthy information

> Terrorists are not all the same, other interrogation methods involving reason and incentives do work actually, since what comes at us are often the "errand-boys" and not the heads. Perhaps some would be willing to undergo torture, if they are true cult followers, in which case they may not give information up either way. And yes, often the information obtained isn't correct. Good point Imke - people will say anything to make the torture stop, and unfortunately sometimes "false confessions" are desired by the interrogators, to justify some actions for their bosses. So, it's even worse than just bad information, if the torturers want to justify some very destructive acts.

> In the end, I think some wanted the war, wanted to be as bad as they could be, since they would gain enormous power and wealth and control in the world (a chance to "roll the dice"). Torture is done at their insistence - people like Donald Rumsfeld insisted on torturing detainees, even against the best advice coming from interrogation experts in the Pentagon.

I think the only people who will disagree with some of the more recent posts are those who have too much emotion invested into recent events, or who have had the mass amounts of propaganda forced on them since 9/11 or any other attack (incidentally these things are not something that people should look down on). Either of these things cloud judgement and has been said, it is vital that the law-makers do not have vested interests in these matters and instead look at things rationally and in a way that will serve the people as a whole.

 

It hurts to be so paralysed at times, seemingly unable to react and achieve actual justice, but I honestly believe that these last few posts sum up the attitude people should try to take on board.

I think the only people who will disagree with some of the more recent posts are those who have too much emotion invested into recent events, or who have had the mass amounts of propaganda forced on them since 9/11 or any other attack (incidentally these things are not something that people should look down on). Either of these things cloud judgement and has been said, it is vital that the law-makers do not have vested interests in these matters and instead look at things rationally and in a way that will serve the people as a whole.

 

It hurts to be so paralysed at times, seemingly unable to react and achieve actual justice, but I honestly believe that these last few posts sum up the attitude people should try to take on board.

> Yes, that must be it - too much emotion clouding reason, too much invested in recent events to reflect and change views. And yes, too many have had the mass propaganda forced on them via the corporately controlled media in this country. Simplistic answers are often the mantra being pushed as well, under the banner of ultra-patriotism.

Unfortunately lawmakers do have vested interests when a corporately back agenda uses the cover of terrorist attacks to push its agenda globally, and these same lawmakers then reap benefits in the form of income down the line.

True, the paralysis one feels from terror attacks is very real and unnerving, so something I need to ponder as well. From afar, it seemed as a big unfortunate event, but to have survived it and lost someone in it is a much more personal and serious matter.

To find true justice and prevent further attacks is to understand the causes, change policies to reduce the global inequities, and defuse the danger through more effective & cooperative agency management. Hopefully the latter has been achieved, while the former is more a matter of our taking action to regain control of our own nations, so they may once again uphold our highest principles and values.

What you totally against torture say is good and sensible, of course. I have agreed and do agree on most points made.

 

But I'm still chewing on cases like that abduction. That's one of the very extreme situations that leave me with the feeling that something is incredibly wrong with the current understanding regarding principles of proportionality in justice. And I'm asking again, how can the suspect

in this very case be more important than..wait..i'll need to be more precise...

 

How can his refusal....oh man, I'm having a difficult time to find and express the essential problem that I feel in there.

I'll have to put more time into this, hmm, sorry.

They cannot be legislated for, and I don't agree they should be.

 

To be honest, the likelihood is that these people will be tortured anyway, behind closed doors. Once you make a law for it then it will become more prevalent in the less extreme cases.

 

Regardless, I say against. There are other ways. It is a shame that there will be people who will have to suffer who may have survived otherwise, but in the great scheme of things, the amount of torture to innocent to innocent people, or the amount of people tortured who will die due to it will be more if you legislate for limited torture laws. The people will die at the hands of sick individuals, not the state, and that is the unfortunate thing about this world and some of the people that inhabit it. It has to be countered in other ways though.

 

Like I said previously, the feeling of paralysis and of not being able to act in these situations is heart wrenching, but the answer is not torture. I may have given a different answer at the start of the thread, but after careful deliberation I feel that there really is no way to justify (a word which has been thrown around a lot) it.

 

Just because somebody is sick and twisted and done disgusting atrocities, innocent before proven guilty has to apply as it is a fundamental right and it shouldn't be taken away as you can never be certain, not even after trial.

I am sitting with an article published in today's Danish free paper Urban that had an interesting relevant article titled DID TORTURE BRING THE USA ON THE TRACK OF BIN LADEN?

 

Extract:

 

CIA only succeeded in localizing Abu Ahmad (bin Laden's courier) in 2009 - almost 4 years after the interrogation of al-Quada's number 3, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was caught in 2005 and exposed to waterboarding 183 times!! :wreck: Dick Cheney used this fact as an argument for torture leading to the successful operation last Sunday.

 

WATERBOARDING PUT CIA ON THE WRONG TRACK

 

But according to CIA sources that the New York Times talked to the problem with that theory (that torture brought the USA on the track of Bin Laden) is that other tortured prisoners put CIA on the wrong track with false names on Osama's courier. And CIA did not regard Abu Ahmad as a central person back in 2005 when waterboarding was used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

It was hard old-fashioned intelligence work - several years after the interrogations using torture - that gave CIA a useful clue / track in the identification and the localisation of the important courier Abu Ahmad.

 

 

 

 

I am sure that in order to avoid continued torture, the tortured prisoners provided false names (maybe they did not know the correct name, but to avoid further torture they had to come up with a name).

 

MY CONCLUSION remains the same: TORTURE SHOULD NOT BE USED. Sometimes the information gained is misleading / false.

It's often born out of frustration and someone's desire to create evidence that isn't there. Hence, in Guantanamo, personnel were under pressure to find evidence linking Al Qaeda with Iraq at the time, to justify the broader war. When normal interrogation did not produce the desired results, the decision to use torture was given the green light, and the result was used to catapult us into a big ugly unnecessary war: Senate Report: Harsh Tactics Used In Attempt to Establish Non-Existent Iraq-al Qaida Link

Perhaps some would argue for the use of torture in extreme circumstances, but then who decides when, how do you stop it at just that one case, and is it ever effective? As Nancy points out, it basically doesn't work - it backfires!

Good old fashioned intelligence work works, as does effective interrogation of suspects using incentives and reason.

Torture is illegal, and the U.S. government must abide by it's own laws and treaties :Torture and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amen to all the last posts since mine. I'm regaining hope in people. haha I hope this whole debate will help pro-torture people to finally change their mind !

Amen

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Religious freak, get outta here!

No mix of politics and religion please.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Religious freak, get outta here!

No mix of politics and religion please.

 

Shhhhhhh :kiss:

Shhhhhhh :kiss:

 

You sound like a priest.