[Closed] Torture - is it ever justified?

If it could have prevented the use of wood chip wall paper in the sixties and seventies I think I would have to say yes.

Otherwise, probably not. It tends to get unreliable evidence as people will say what they think you want to hear rather than necessarily the truth. Drug induced interrogation is where it is at (apparently)

On some occasions yes and others definately not. Its objective. NIMBYs would like to think that the worlds not that bad a place but in reality conflict brings out the worst in us.

It's not acceptable in a civilised society and it is unreliable anyway.
We must rely on intelligence & not enraging these people with dubious foreign policies and unquestioned support of the US.

The problem is that the public are told things like "waterboarding saved lives" but do we actually get the evidence presented to us? And by this I would need to be able to see the accused's evidence and the follow up trail that lead to arrests/actions that prevented actual attacks or broke up cells. It is unlikely that evidence of this level will ever be presented.

I don't like the idea of torture/extreme interrogation but admit that it could make a difference in theory. And I suspect that the majority is used as a revenge/humiliation tool as much as an intelligence gathering tool.

I wouldn't believe George Bush if he told me my arse was on fire I I could actually feel some excessive posterior warming. How much "waterboarding" was used to provide the evidence of the WMDs that were never there?

2wheels, we may live in a civilised society thank god but, we we dont live in a civilised world.

No it's never justified - it demonstrates failure.

Would be interested to know whether the US/UK gov would classify their accepted methods as 'torture' if they were done to US/UK military by a foreign power?

No

yes, when fighting terrorism like it was used for.

I wouldn't believe George Bush if he told me my arse was on fire

The Iraq war wasn't about fighting terrorism though Ton

who mentioned the iraq war...........

TJ, I wish my world was as black and white as yours. I do admire your strength of character though.

No, these people aren't convicted of any crime at the time are they?

So they are innocent people...being tortured.

Would it be OK if it was you...your son...etc?

two wrongs don't make a right and any information gained is unreliable anyway.

Thats two good reasons for not using it. Moral and pragmatic

It kinda was for the US, the WMD argument was much more strongly put this side of the pond, in the USA it was an afterthought on the reasons to got to war list. Hence the allegations of "sexing up" the evidence.

apparently we went to war on Saddam becuase of info received under torture regarding WMD. If they hadn't tortured someone for this false info then we might be living quite in a different world. If you tortured me enough I'd probably confess to whatever heinious crime you accused me of.

apparently we went to war on Saddam becuase of info received under torture regarding WMD. If they hadn't tortured someone for this false info then we might be living quite in a different world. If you tortured me enough I'd probably confess to whatever heinious crime you accused me of.

I've just watched a prog on Discovery which showed how the british would bury nazi airmen shot down over britain with full military honours.
I think it is a reflection on society how we treat our prisoners/crimiinals/enemies etc.
That's why I believe torture/capital punishment/abuse is totally unacceptable.
We need to look at the causes of terrorism, why do they want to kill us?
Has our actions from imperial expantion to suez to Iraq to Afganistan brought any good to the world or just radicalised generations of hopeless, desperate people?
People will tell you anything during torture and as said, it's usually used as a humiliation, punishment or deterrent.

no - I fail to see the logic of fighting to defend a way of life we call 'civilised' if to do so means we have to treat other people like animals.

I'm well aware that if my wife had died on 7/7, I might have a significantly different perspective, but I'm not sure it's ever good for us as people to let powerful impulses such as revenge shape our response to situations.

I also think that, before anyone says "yes", they should read some of the survivor accounts of being tortured - it makes me cringe to think about treating people that way, and what it does to their psyche disturbs me more than the accounts of the physical pain. Mind you, I'm a big softie - what disturbed me most in Saving Private Ryan was the scene where the German prisoner was begging for his life.

Never acceptable.

Ok so lets get this straight, it's ok for us to torture as we're the good guys but if the other side does it then it's wrong?

If someone in your family/regiment/close circle of friends was tortured most people (me included) would want revenge. There's probably a lot of people out there wanting revenge right now.

God tells me that it is not acceptable.

but I'm not sure it's ever good for us as people to let powerful impulses such as revenge shape our response to situations.

Intersting you mention revenge, I've just read a (long but really good) article which argues (among other things) that most modern suicide bombings are acts of revenge rather than religion.

[url= http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/the-politics-behind-misunderstanding-islam/comment-page-2/#comment-35883 ]The Politics Behind Misunderstanding Islam[/url]

For Muslims worldwide, however, GWOT itself continues. The United States has orchestrated a surge in Afghanistan. The CIA’s drone war in the ****stani borderlands has escalated rapidly. U.S. Special Forces now operate in 75 countries, at least 15 more than during the Bush years. Meanwhile, Guantanamo remains open, the United States still practices extraordinary rendition, and assassination remains an active part of Washington’s toolbox.

The civilians killed in these overseas contingency operations are predominantly Muslim. The people seized and interrogated are mostly Muslim. The buildings destroyed are largely Muslim-owned. As a result, the rhetoric of “crusaders and imperialists” used by al-Qaeda falls on receptive ears. Despite his Cairo speech, the favorability rating of the United States in the Muslim world, already grim enough, has slid even further since Obama took office — in Egypt, from 41% in 2009 to 31% percent now; in Turkey, from 33% to 23%; and in ****stan, from 13% to 8%.

The U.S. wars, occupations, raids, and repeated air strikes have produced much of this disaffection and, as political scientist Robert Pape has consistently argued, most of the suicide bombings and other attacks against Western troops and targets as well. This is revenge, not religion, talking — just as it was for Americans after September 11, 2001. As commentator M. Junaid Levesque-Alam astutely pointed out, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”

I'm no expert but I believe that is how most people are enlisted to any "terrorist" organisation - e.g. You live in a remote impoverished area, are poor and have little worldly knowledge. Your wife and kids are killed by a misplaced bomb / a n other circumstance. You are shown a way of "revenge" against the perpetrators of murder against your family. You don't have much to lose. What do you do????

Never. It doesn't produce reliable evidence, and it's a sure fire way of making sure you have a ready supply of would be terrorists. We pretty much proved that being more of a tosser than the other side wasn't a winning strategy in Northern Ireland with Internment.

Think of it from a situation we could hypothetically be involved in. If someone said "XYZ European country are throwing their weight around in the EU parliament and harming our economy", you'd not be particularly bothered. If they could say "XYZ European country are throwing their weight around, harming our economy, kidnapping British people then torturing them, and dropping bombs indiscriminately" then there's a fair chance you'd hate them.

Absolutely. Should be made a televised sport.

How much "waterboarding" was used to provide the evidence of the WMDs that were never there?

The Iraq war wasn't about fighting terrorism though Ton

who mentioned the iraq war...........

Erm, Ton, I think it was the quote at the top of this post that iDave was referring to...

------------

yes, when fighting terrorism like it was used for.

British citizens (and many others) have been tortured at Guantanamo Bay and other places; no evidence of their 'terrorist activities' has ever been presented. Is that ok?

Easy question to ask; would you like it to be performed on you and/or loved ones?

I'm sure that I'm not in a minority here, the answer is no.

And like most people I suspect, I'd tell them whatever it was they wanted to hear.

Its wrong and Bush, Rumsfelt et al are war criminals.

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

Either breaking the 3rd or 4th (depending on how you judge the tortured, whether armed force or civi) convention of the Geneva Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Hague_Conventions

The problem with torture is it only ends when the torturer hears what they want to hear. If they want to hear about WMDs they'll keep torturing until they hear it, if the person being tortured has to make up stuff to stop the torture then what use is that? Some of the 'intelligence' gained from detainees after 9/11 turned out to be tortured suspects blurting out the plot-lines from holywood disaster movies. Then surprisingly you don't find WMDs in Iraq and you don't find Godzilla in Afganistan either

most modern suicide bombings are acts of revenge rather than religion.

[i]If you asked me if I was in favour of torture, I'd say "no" pretty instantly, but this has made me think - if it would have prevented 9/11....[/i]

I think there's two separate issues which sort of get conflated.

Firstly, Is it right to torture someone to gain information that can save lives?

Secondly, and more important in reality.

How many people is it acceptable to torture who don't have the information you need to save live until you find one who does?

Apologies if this has already been covered.

No. A respect for Human Rights is the foundation of any society worth it's salt.

no. Never right.

Oh yes, water boarding is highly effective. Better than sleep and sensory deprivation.

Right or wrong is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it produces 'information' of no usable quality, hence it is stupid.

But then, what do you expect of religious fanatics (Bush, Blair etc) ? They 'believe' things, so they must be true...

No, never, under no circumstances. Ever.

I think GW Bush is trying to cover his own ass, he actually said his lawyers said Waterboarding was legal, and no I don't think torturing is justified.

I think that, of all the very good points made on this thread, it's the following that strikes a chord with me the most:

No. A respect for Human Rights is the foundation of any society worth it's salt.

I think GW Bush is trying to cover his own ass, he actually said his lawyers said Waterboarding was legal, and no I don't think torturing is justified.

I heard that on Radio 4 this morning.

Seems to me he must have lost his moral compass.

Serious question - what amounts to "Torture"?

Repeated questioning?
Shouting?
Humiliation (name calling)?
Thirst/Hunger?
Denial of cigarettes?
Stress positioning?
sensory deprivation?
White noise?
Sleep deprivation?
Couple of slaps?
Heat/Cold stress?
Mild shocks with Electrocution?
Tasering?
Beating?
Waterboarding?
Rape?
Thumbscrews?
Amputation?

hmmm... one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.. it often seems that the west's definition of terrorist.. if applied during WWII.. would have made anyone that opposed Hitler's regime a terror suspect..

anyway.. I thought this thread was about X-factor..?

To be honest I can't see why this is such a difficult subject. I tried that waterboarding once, it was fantastic, That was in Cornwall, admittedly when i did it up north it was a bit chilly. But these guys are in Cuba, so what's the problem?

Serious question - what amounts to "Torture"?

Just saw this on the BBC news, apparently our government thinks waterboarding is torture:

A Number 10 spokeswoman declined to comment directly on the claims but said it classed waterboarding as torture.

"We don't condone it [torture], nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf."

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html ]Sam Harris on the "ticking bomb"[/url]

our government thinks

But thats not an ICC court decision is it? I mean our government saying it is is as valid as the American claim it isnt.

only international definition I can find is : [i]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted[/i]

[b]Severe[/b] pain or suffering... thats very much a matter of perception, its not a black or white definition!

You're worrying about [b]definitions[/b] of torture?

You need to decide what *you* think is torture. Make your own mind up.

Good grief. What is happening to the people of this country. Is everyone's moral compass out of whack?

surely someone else must be in favour of the good old chinese burn............... 😉

good old chinese burn.

Racist!!

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Serious question - what amounts to "Torture"?

Repeated questioning?
Shouting?
Humiliation (name calling)?
Thirst/Hunger?
Denial of cigarettes?
Stress positioning?
sensory deprivation?
White noise?
Sleep deprivation?
Couple of slaps?
Heat/Cold stress?
Mild shocks with Electrocution?
Tasering?
Beating?
Waterboarding?
Rape?
Thumbscrews?
Amputation?

More silliness from ratty.

If it was happening to you mate, I'm pretty sure you'd have a fair idea what constitutes torture. You don't strike me as someone who would think, "if only I could find out whether I'd been tortured, then I would know whether I should complain".

If waterboarding wasn't torture, then they wouldn't bother doing it. Or do you think waterboarding is provided as a recreational activity for prisoners ?

And as for your nonsense concerning whether it is "severe", are you seriously suggesting that just a mild slap is all that is needed to make people sign confessions and denounce themselves ? [i]ffs[/i]

🙄

Ha! Prisoners torture me very bleeding day! What's different?

Waterboarding sounds like fun. You need quite a fast boat for that don't you?

I quite fancy extreme waterboarding...as long as it's not "severe".

OK, torture is wrong.

You are the head of MI6. You receive information to the effect that known terrorist suspects are planning an attack on a nightclub in a busy city centre. You are reasonably certain the info you've received has come about through use of torture by a third party/country

Do you act on it?

nickc, please, not that old chestnut.

Bless you ton..........you are so utterly predictable ! 😀

Just after I posted, I thought to myself, "ton is on this thread, I wonder whether I'll get the rolling eyes"

You didn't let me down .......with your consistent, but very carefully thought out comment ! 😀

😆

if it saves lives , then yes.lets not forget these people will watch you burn and not even piss on you if you were on fire,

scraprider sense at last.

scraprider. torture to 50 people to get the information to save one person? How about having to torture an entire town full of people to get a scrap of info? Where do you draw the line?

It can only be drawn at zero

Remeber of course that any information garnered by torture is suspect to say the least.

How about if it was member of your family? Remember that the ony reason you are using torture is that you have no other info so the innocent get caught up in it as well.

How many innocent people is it justifiable to torture to save one life?

Where do you draw the line?

The line is very easy to draw. For example ....... the Yanks are allowed to torture freely, but the Chinese, or perhaps the Iranians, aren't. It's all pretty logical.

The original question was "Torture - is it ever justified?"

Take this scenario

Your wife and children have been taken by a group of people you catch one of them as they are leaving. The person you have captured laughs at you and tells you his friends are going to kill your wife and family in 3hrs time. Would you get the drill out to persuade him to tell you where they have taken your wife and children, or would you stand by the fact torture is never ever justified ?

Bazzer

Bazzer it's not a real scenario that's ever going to happen though is it?

Would you get the drill out

Well call me sentimental, but personally I would leave my DIY chores for another day.

Every so often on STW, we get a "What battery drill" thread. Tbh, they get a bit boring. Tonight though, it's received an interesting twist.

What battery drill for torturing the guy you've hypothetically caught that's hypothetically captured your wife and kids and hypothetically knows their whereabouts but laughs hypothetically hysterically at you. I'm thinking lithium ion isn't going to be that important for this job.

Only in 24.

How about a brace and bit for that old skool feel

I used to date a girl who liked me to hold her down, tweak her nipples and call her a bitch.

I had no moral qualms about doing this, she was a bitch.

😈

So yes, torture is justified when in the company of up for it women.

If torture is the only way to stop some towelhead blowing a plane up then get the electrodes on the testicles.I expect all countries use some form of torture it's what secret services do and being secret we are never really going to find out are we?

Torture is always justified. Especially on children, or animals, or your wife - particularly if the tea's not on the table in time.

oohh towelhead nice bit of leftie-baiting racism there

its already been said but if you torture your enemies you loose the right to judge them for the same crimes and surely torture is just another form of terrorism

and bush is just trying to clean up his image, the same way nixon did after he was kicked out
but nixon = liar
and bush = warmongering idiot

scraprider sense at last.

No, ton; just because someone agrees with [i]you[/i] doesn't make it 'sense'.

If someone agrees with [i][b]me[/b][/i], then fair enough. But [i]you[/i]; sorry, doesn't work like that.

If torture is the only way to stop some [b]towelhead[/b] blowing a plane up then get the electrodes on the testicles

Uh-oh. The hard of thinking have turned up. Must have a word about the security down at the Home for the Terminally Inane...

If torture is the only way to stop some towelhead blowing a plane up then get the electrodes on the testicles.

Surely if you can manage to get some electrodes onto the towelhead's testicles, then it's just as easy to stop him boarding the plane with a bomb ?

ton, I reckon you've probably used torture once or twice haven't you? We know you're not one to be messed with. What's your favourite method?

Is it acceptable to own bombers with bombers?

This is the kind of thing that gets done in our name when we start condoning torture.

Within days of starting his job in Tashkent in 2002, photographs of a corpse landed on his desk. He sent them off to Britain, to be analysed by a Home Office pathologist.

The victim was a supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a fundamentalist Islamic organisation but one that professes non-violence. Murray says: "The main finding was that this person had died from immersion in boiling liquid. And it was immersion, rather than splashing, because there was a clear tide-line around the upper torso and upper limbs and complete burns coverage underneath.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/09/ive_seen_the_bl.html

Jack Straw thinks it's ok though. Maybe that's good enough for us?

i dont agree with any one , my veiws are my own, ive done my time in harms way, 3 times , and seen what " the cause " can do , and it aint nice, there will never be a sensible amswer to threads like this, or to the question , its a hard one, but i stand by what i said yes , if it saves lives, of course WE will never know if lives were/will/have been saved , but i think we can all agree , its a shity mess alrighty,not going to post about it again 😐

in a theoretical situation where you knew somwone knew something of great significance, which could potentially save lives, then u could argue that leaning on them a bit may be appropriate. But you just know that what George Bush is talking about is the sort of crap that went on in Iraqi prisons, where US service personnel treated the inmates worse than animals on a regular basis, all in the interestes of 'freedom'.

I'm sure I could justify torture myself under some circumstances but I could justify my country doing it in my name.