You guys continue to make very convincing points that has me continue to be more and more against the idea, but I still can't fully bring myself to say 100% no to it. I mean of course I think that it should almost never be used but in the most extreme cases. You did bring up that judgement is probably clouded. Alright I'll admit it it's true. Our government does feed us things and has done things that we don't want to or aren't "supposed" to know about or help persuade. Perhaps though for me it may be different from all of you because of being so close to NYC. I mean on 9/11 I could see the smoke from the World Trade Center from my house (though in the far distance). The idea of something as terrible as that happening just a matter of a miles away was traumatic and scary. I mean I know for a few years after 9/11 I was honestly uneasy and afraid when heading into NYC or even going on bridges in fear that something might happen. Today it's nothing like that but it is still something that lingers on, and I think whether I realize it or not is at the back of my mind.

 

Also with countries such as Iran developing nuclear power that could very well lead to nuclear weapons, Pakistan being an unstable nation with their nuclear weapons, knowing that the former Soviet Union lost a bunch of suitcase nukes, and the unarguable fact that radical jihadists would love nothing more than to get a nuclear weapon, I've always had the fear of one being detonated in the city, as crazy as you guys may think that sounds.

 

Living in such a close vicinity to NYC, or having the ability to go there at anytime I choose this is unnerving and this is the main reason why I cannot fully say or take the possibility of torture off the table, especially considering that NYC is one of the most popular and populated cities not only in America but in the entire world.

 

I'm not sure where the rest of you live, but I'm sure if you were in a similar situation as I am perhaps you could possibly understand where I'm coming from. It's not saying that I think it's a good thing. No form of human violence is good, whether it be anything from domestic violence to wars or torture, so I'm not condoning at what the government is doing is good.

Still haven't boiled it down yet, hell, my head is full of knots.

Anyway, my sentiments got nothing to do with the heart-wrenching or fainting

feelings that those circumstances arouse.

I'll be chewing on that sad shit a bit longer I guess. I hope you guys will win me over, but you'll need to bring up less generic arguments. I'm a hippie myself, you know.

In dubio pro reo...well yes, of course, but...

 

Wonder what the other 12 members in 'my' category made them vote there?

Still haven't boiled it down yet, hell, my head is full of knots.

Anyway, my sentiments got nothing to do with the heart-wrenching or fainting

feelings that those circumstances arouse.

I'll be chewing on that sad shit a bit longer I guess. I hope you guys will win me over, but you'll need to bring up less generic arguments. I'm a hippie myself, you know.

In dubio pro reo...well yes, of course, but...

 

Wonder what the other 12 members in 'my' category made them vote there?

 

well maybe 11, because I think I've stated my point as best as I can :lol:

Yes! It took me ages to post that stuff and when I finally did, you had written and posted yours.

So yes, the other eleven.

It's just something we'll have to disagree on by the looks of things.

After reading the thread I still don't see why someone would be for it, and if I pursued discussions I'm sure it would only irritate me.

You guys continue to make very convincing points that has me continue to be more and more against the idea, but I still can't fully bring myself to say 100% no to it. I mean of course I think that it should almost never be used but in the most extreme cases. You did bring up that judgement is probably clouded. Alright I'll admit it it's true. Our government does feed us things and has done things that we don't want to or aren't "supposed" to know about or help persuade. Perhaps though for me it may be different from all of you because of being so close to NYC. I mean on 9/11 I could see the smoke from the World Trade Center from my house (though in the far distance). The idea of something as terrible as that happening just a matter of a miles away was traumatic and scary. I mean I know for a few years after 9/11 I was honestly uneasy and afraid when heading into NYC or even going on bridges in fear that something might happen. Today it's nothing like that but it is still something that lingers on, and I think whether I realize it or not is at the back of my mind.

 

Also with countries such as Iran developing nuclear power that could very well lead to nuclear weapons, Pakistan being an unstable nation with their nuclear weapons, knowing that the former Soviet Union lost a bunch of suitcase nukes, and the unarguable fact that radical jihadists would love nothing more than to get a nuclear weapon, I've always had the fear of one being detonated in the city, as crazy as you guys may think that sounds.

 

Living in such a close vicinity to NYC, or having the ability to go there at anytime I choose this is unnerving and this is the main reason why I cannot fully say or take the possibility of torture off the table, especially considering that NYC is one of the most popular and populated cities not only in America but in the entire world.

 

I'm not sure where the rest of you live, but I'm sure if you were in a similar situation as I am perhaps you could possibly understand where I'm coming from. It's not saying that I think it's a good thing. No form of human violence is good, whether it be anything from domestic violence to wars or torture, so I'm not condoning at what the government is doing is good.

 

That doesn't sound crazy, since it's very likely one of their biggest happiest dreams.

I've ignored the whole 9/11- terrorism debate here, it's just so complex.

But I think I'll take it into my considerations, too.

 

Gotta go now, good night.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp19qiash2U]YouTube - Jack Bauer Interrogates Santa Claus[/ame]

 

Sorry :p

I understand The_Gloaming how you feel, and were I there, I would want even more to prevent future attacks much the same as you! The real way to reduce the threat is to reduce the problems that lead a few into such radicalism. Torture is ineffective and often provides contrary information that leads investigators astray, and has been used to justify some serious actions that in the end hurt more people and create more potential terrorists. My way of seeing an answer is to reduce the forces that drive people in the direction of wanting to join militant extremist organizations, increase the true ability of international investigations to uncover and stop plots, and thus reduce the odds of it happening again.

It is poverty, frustration, and being disrespected that motivates people to join militant extremist organizations and to commit extreme acts of violence, and it's been that way for a long long time - from the Weather Underground to the Symbionese Liberation Army to Jim Jones's Cult, when poor people feel pushed to the edge and are frustrated by the mistreatment they receive and the injustices they see, it's understandable where the motive force is coming from.

So we would best reduce the threat by supporting the will of the people in all of the world to gain control and form real democracies. Supporting those who are fighting for their rights is essential, as well as supporting global economic fairness. Investing in their future is investing in real security, and better, more secure trading partners.

On the other side of the equation is the problems of communications and turf wars between law enforcement agencies. Perhaps this matter is now lessened by homeland security, although the loss of our privacy rights and the creation of a super-sized bureaucracy wasn't necessary to accomplish the task of increasing agency cooperation.

well thank you for understanding. That's for me my whole point. I just think that it was a horrible event to have happened where thousands of innocent people died and clearly it is something that I don't want to see happen again, whether it be here in the US or some other country. The value of a human life is priceless. That's what I'm mainly try to get across. I'm sorry if I seem ignorant or being stubborn like Bush and sticking to my guns and not budging (:P). I have read all of the points that all of you have brought up, and since the creation of this thread it has pushed me away from the use of torture, and the more I'm thinking about it now it isn't right to do a person for their own human rights, especially since we're a country that values freedom. I was just trying to bring up extreme cases where it might have to be used, but I guess the point you guys are trying to make is that you should still give someone their basic human rights regardless if they are an innocent neighbor down the street, or if they have killed hundreds or thousands of people in the past (I guess I personally find it tough to let someone like that appear to get away scott free if they have information and in their past they've done horrific things and have no remorse or respect for human life).

 

Only speaking for myself I think making a decision on being pro or against is a double edged sword. I would feel guilty being for torture because then a persons basic human rights are taken away, which leaves the question of who is safe, especially if the person being tortured is in fact innocent. Also the physical as well as mental damage it can cause can be permanent or leave long lasting damage and trauma. At the same time if a terrible tragedy or attack was to happen and hundreds or thousands or even millions of people died I would feel tremendous guilt being completely against it knowing that there may have been a chance it could've been prevented, because someone was withholding information.

 

So then for argument sake I'm going to take the side then of anti-torture, however if something big were to happen in the future I'd feel guilty that (I guess if these are the right words, though it may not come off that way) not every option to prevent such event.

 

 

This also makes me have another question for those that are completely against it. You all bring up the topic of the possibility of people being innocent. what if the person is proven to be completely guilty of what they have done? Like just say for argument sake you were to capture Bin Laden alive. Would you just leave him alone and let him rot in jail knowing he has a large amount of information? Is it something that only applies to someone who has not been proven guilty of a crime?

 

 

From that, can you guys (primarily chuck kottke, greg and alice) at least understand, though of course not agree where I'm coming from?

 

----

 

To respond to chuck kottke. I agree with what you have to say in that a lot of those radical religious militants cling onto whatever they can to to get rid of their frustrations, but also coming from areas of the world where a good education may not be made available makes it also easy to join because they may not know better. I do agree that we should help people out in other countries that are trying to have a free life but are being oppressed. But I don't know how you go about doing that. Especially since I feel as a nation the US should stop getting it's nose into other peoples business. So in some sense I don't know if I would be so comfortable as to give arms or try to help out, if that's the case. Especially from in the past it seems things tend to bite us in the ass.

Given the knowledge that someone was captured who could have provided information to stop a massive attack, but did not spill the beans, I would have to wonder if torture works on someone like that anyhow. For someone so absorbed into their own world view, I seriously doubt they would give any evidence up, unless the interrogator used reason and incentives, or tricks to coax useful information out of them, and they then realized it would work to their benefit. But for the Osama bin Laden's of the world, that would never happen - they not only drank their own cool-aid, they invented the flavor. Better to let them hide as they are so apt to do in a "safe place" and keep good hidden surveillance on them (after quietly getting a real warrant from a judge based on credible evidence for doing so) - to get the information while they are part of the loop and the information they then offer is quite accurate and can be used to best effect.

 

Hey, yes, some of the people in those places are undereducated, some are out of work looking for something to do, and thus may be lured into religious militant cults. But the answer is to offer education and resources - Greg Mortensen had great success when he listened to the people of Pakistan, and then got the resources they needed to build a school, brought in the books and supplies they needed. They really wanted to learn, and send their kids to school - there simply was no funding, supplies, learned people to offer the courses, building materials, etc. So it's maybe not as hard a problem to solve as we think it is - just a matter of doing it, funding it. Most of all, listening to the needs of the people in those areas and helping them with what they really need.

Send books and desks, pencils, pens, and paper. Send supplies to build schools, equip them properly, and offer whatever the people there need and ask for. Send educators if need be. Send pumps, prime the pump - they'll do the rest.

Open up investment and opportunity there, so those graduates have jobs and careers, and can make their own economies flourish.

Support honest business practices, so they see us as partners in good faith.

We need to regain control over our own nation to make this happen. Honest elections, getting the money out of elections is essential to our democracy - corporations are not people, we are the people! When we can send the right kind of aid, national security will become less of a concern. The best security policy is a policy that promotes global prosperity.

 

 

This also makes me have another question for those that are completely against it. You all bring up the topic of the possibility of people being innocent. what if the person is proven to be completely guilty of what they have done? Like just say for argument sake you were to capture Bin Laden alive. Would you just leave him alone and let him rot in jail knowing he has a large amount of information? Is it something that only applies to someone who has not been proven guilty of a crime?

 

 

From that, can you guys (primarily chuck kottke, greg and alice) at least understand, though of course not agree where I'm coming from?

 

 

I'd let him rot in jail, while interrogating him and see what we found out.

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but as has been said, torture and wrong information is just as likely to lead to more terrorist attacks in the future, and I think that it is for the greater good of human life not to torture people, both from a personal moral, and also a potentially safer (in the long run) future. If you allowed this then it would not be long before it spread throughout other countries.

 

That indeed is a double edged sword, as although you are in a high risk area, it also puts you in a place that others look to. As selfish as it makes me sound as I don't live there, I think if I did live there I would try to put the world first as I try to make the world a better place as a whole when it comes to the bigger picture. I feel stopping torture would contribute to that and therefore I'm positive I'd be against it even if I lived in NYC or London etc.

Also I agree, if it was a person who had knowledge of a terrorist attack on a huge nuclear scale, I doubt you'd get useful information from them anyway. You know what these religious nuts are like...

Final point for the moment, torture happens anyway and is illegal.

It certainly doesn't need to be legalised.

If something major happened and they needed information quickly then they would do it, regardless of the laws.

I personally just find it hard to believe that a country with so many human resources, with all its knowledge, has to use torture. Interrogation has already become a science in itself, torture is not neccessary.

 

I understand where the doubts are coming from and I don't want to take the moral highground, but torture is a step back into medieval times.

 

Another thing that bugs me is that torture has apparently been used to learn the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Now was that really neccessary? Was it a life-threatening situation?

My opinion hasn't moved much.

I decided to stick to my case, since it's a concrete example for such an extreme situation.

 

So I'm leaving terrorism unconsidered, we had no concrete example there, which made things too unspecific and vague.

Which imo led to generic posts about the dangers, which I guess everyone knows and sees. (I'd love to have a chat with Caroline though?)

 

I'd like to correct my first post, I'm not FOR torture and have never been.

 

But if an officer interrogates a person who is showing off gross traits of narcissim

and delusion of grandeur and who has just picked up a million deutschmarks of ransom, and there is a kid missing, and he thinks he can just not talk

- for me, such a person has lost the right to be unconditionally treated as a human being. Those kind of people need to be educated.

I'm utterly aware of what I'm saying. I'm sick of judiciary's focus on the rights of offenders. There need to be some sort of very careful adjustments there and

if anyone comes forward with an idea from beyond the realm of violence, that of course would be wonderful.

 

 

Maybe now that I'm facing middle-age, I'm slowly becoming badass reactionary? Nope, I think that's no it.

This also makes me have another question for those that are completely against it. You all bring up the topic of the possibility of people being innocent. what if the person is proven to be completely guilty of what they have done? Like just say for argument sake you were to capture Bin Laden alive. Would you just leave him alone and let him rot in jail knowing he has a large amount of information? Is it something that only applies to someone who has not been proven guilty of a crime?

 

 

From that, can you guys (primarily chuck kottke, greg and alice) at least understand, though of course not agree where I'm coming from?

 

 

My answer to that would be the same as chuck kottke and Greg. And I also think I wouldn't be for torture if I was living in NYC. Honestly, I don't really see how this makes any difference. I understand what you're trying to say but I just think it doesn't change much. I mean, being for or against torture depends on your morals (no offence) and anyway, it's not like torture would actually stop terrorist attacks or anything. It would only lead to more violence and more hate coming from the terrorists themselves. I also think that saying you think life is priceless and then accepting the use of torture is kind of a nonsense. Even if torture doen't lead to death, accepting it is devaluing life.

And I also completely agree with Imke saying accepting torture is a step back into medieval times !

 

My opinion hasn't moved much.

I decided to stick to my case, since it's a concrete example for such an extreme situation.

 

So I'm leaving terrorism unconsidered, we had no concrete example there, which made things too unspecific and vague.

Which imo led to generic posts about the dangers, which I guess everyone knows and sees. (I'd love to have a chat with Caroline though?)

 

I'd like to correct my first post, I'm not FOR torture and have never been.

 

But if an officer interrogates a person who is showing off gross traits of narcissim

and delusion of grandeur and who has just picked up a million deutschmarks of ransom, and there is a kid missing, and he thinks he can just not talk

- for me, such a person has lost the right to be unconditionally treated as a human being. Those kind of people need to be educated.

I'm utterly aware of what I'm saying. I'm sick of judiciary's focus on the rights of offenders. There need to be some sort of very careful adjustments there and

if anyone comes forward with an idea from beyond the realm of violence, that of course would be wonderful.

 

 

Maybe now that I'm facing middle-age, I'm slowly becoming badass reactionary? Nope, I think that's no it.

 

Sorry but feel the need to correct you, you are for torture. This reminds me of when people are like "I'M NOT HOMOPHOBE but ..... " and they say homophobic stuff without even realising it but they never forget to insist on the fact they aren't homophobe before hand just because accepting it would make them look bad.

Bringing up hidden homophobia is rather tiring, but as I see what you mean, I will

- for the sake of the really important parts of my post- again declare that I'm for torture under extreme circumstances. ( Wich is unprecise and therefore wrong.)

 

How do you see the rest of my post?

My answer to that would be the same as chuck kottke and Greg. And I also think I wouldn't be for torture if I was living in NYC. Honestly, I don't really see how this makes any difference. I understand what you're trying to say but I just think it doesn't change much. I mean, being for or against torture depends on your morals (no offence) and anyway, it's not like torture would actually stop terrorist attacks or anything. It would only lead to more violence and more hate coming from the terrorists themselves. I also think that saying you think life is priceless and then accepting the use of torture is kind of a nonsense. Even if torture doen't lead to death, accepting it is devaluing life.

And I also completely agree with Imke saying accepting torture is a step back into medieval times !

 

 

You're right. I guess it would lead to more violence and hate (although they already hate us so much I don't see how they can hate us any more to be honest). But now that you put it that way I guess it is hypocritical of me to value life and then accept torture. Or also hypocritical that I was ashamed of those stupid college kids celebrating Bin Ladens death like it was a superbowl party, and then be for torture.

 

And I don't like the idea of being a hypocrite so I won't be for torture because logically it doesn't really make sense to be for one thing and not the other. It is afterall taking away human rights, but also the results may not be completely effective, and it degrades our country away from being prosperous or advanced. Though I don't like the idea of saying that I have bad morals. To be honest (not to toot my own horn or sound egocentric), but I think I'm an extremely moral person (more than a lot of people I know), so I guess calling me that from an outside point of view is not something that I'd like to hear, and I guess helps to show that it's not something that should be acceptable from a moral standpoint.

 

Still since I was one to experience 9/11 at a close level, and also be fed the news in a focused frame for such a long time until I decided to check various sources for myself I guess you can't really blame me for thinking a certain way at the time. It is hard afterall to break away from a certain mindframe you've had for a while. In fact I've changed my mind on opinions on certain events or people over the past, such as my opinion on Obama as a candidate/president (more time than I can think of).

You're right. I guess it would lead to more violence and hate (although they already hate us so much I don't see how they can hate us any more to be honest). But now that you put it that way I guess it is hypocritical of me to value life and then accept torture. Or also hypocritical that I was ashamed of those stupid college kids celebrating Bin Ladens death like it was a superbowl party, and then be for torture.

 

And I don't like the idea of being a hypocrite so I won't be for torture because logically it doesn't really make sense to be for one thing and not the other. It is afterall taking away human rights, but also the results may not be completely effective, and it degrades our country away from being prosperous or advanced. Though I don't like the idea of saying that I have bad morals. To be honest (not to toot my own horn or sound egocentric), but I think I'm an extremely moral person (more than a lot of people I know), so I guess calling me that from an outside point of view is not something that I'd like to hear, and I guess helps to show that it's not something that should be acceptable from a moral standpoint.

 

Still since I was one to experience 9/11 at a close level, and also be fed the news in a focused frame for such a long time until I decided to check various sources for myself I guess you can't really blame me for thinking a certain way at the time. It is hard afterall to break away from a certain mindframe you've had for a while. In fact I've changed my mind on opinions on certain events or people over the past, such as my opinion on Obama as a candidate/president (more time than I can think of).

 

This just made my night Mike ! I knew the morals thing would make you realise you can't accept torture because it really seems like you are a good and moral person, generally. And your opinion on torture was just the result of intense american medias influence. And being able to change your mind shows you are an open minded person. I'm glad. :)

:)

Hello?

Hmm, I do see your point, Valerie.

But if we give policemen or government officials the right to decide whether someone deserves his human rights or not, then how are we supposed to know that they're not gonna take them from us at some point too?

Am working on an answer. It might take a couple of days since it's so tricky and I want to do it justice.

 

Btw. this tricky case led to a fundamental debate among jurists/ legal scholars. Three groups/opinions did form out ultimately.

One of which of course is yours, namely to strictly follow adherence to the human rights. The other two groups saw a need for a systemic reform.

Sadly, I cannot find that text atm, but haven't given up on it yet.

I still think that even a total nutcase who abducted a child deserves his human rights.

 

There's no guarantee that any obtained information is correct, there's no guarantee that there will be any information at all.

Even if the intention would be to save a child, in the end using torture wouldn't make us any better than the suspect himself.

I know that what you're saying is "Screw it, as long as the child gets saved", but if we start allowing exceptions, then soon the exception would be the norm. There's always someone in danger and there's always someone who's giving up on conventional interrogation methods too fast or who's getting kicks out of torturing people. There is no controlling or regulating the use of torture.

I can picture the situation you described, Valerie, but if the only remaining option would be torture, then maybe the policemen, officers, whatever weren't well-trained in interrogation at all.

 

 

Also another question would be, what methods of torture would anyone who is in favour of torture find acceptable?

There might be less-bloody methods than in the middle-ages now, but they're no less violent and inhuman.

I agree that for the greater good torture should never be used, and regrettably accept that this will lead to some tragic events, hence I believe that any extreme circumstance that you put forward can be dismissed, and other methods should be used to find the information. Also, as I've mentioned several times, when it comes down to it, some people will torture and then cover things up, so I don't think there needs to be any constitutional/law-based acknowledgement as these extreme circumstances will already result in torture behind closed doors and a law change will only serve to lead to exploitation in cases which are not extreme, whatever that means.