Forum menu
Never. At all. There's then no line between justifying it on the basis that that person "might have some knowledge that will prevent whatever" and inflicting it on people whose ideas and beliefs you might not agree with.
surfer - its a stupid position. It follows no logic. How can you be sure they have information but you don't know what the information is?
Its never justified. Its illegal in international law, its morally wrong and it doesn't proved useful information anyway
I ask you again. How many innocents are you prepared to torture to get one bit of information?
I would say that if those sanctioning torture are so convinced by its ability to save lives, they should be willing to do time for their actions.
At the moment their is no personal cost to the decision makers who declare war and authorise torture, maybe 10 years for authorising torture and life for sending troops to war would concentrate their minds on alternative solutions.
I don't think torture is generally justifiable, however I could see circumstances in the field where the temptation to get needed information for immediate use (and which could be immediately verified) might be difficult to resist.
For example if a member of my family were being held by kidnappers and I had caught one of them I'd be willing to use any means to get them to tell me the location.
God tells me that it is not acceptable
Is that the same God that probably told Bush is was perfectly acceptable? 😉
Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?
surfer - its a stupid position. It follows no logic. How can you be sure they have information but you don't know what the information is?
Your wrong TJ. To refine the question:
If you had "reliable" information to indicate that a captive had information which could save a 000 lives, if he himself told you he had the information and you know he set the device to explode. Would you sanction the use of torture in this instance?
Its no use saying that the scenario is far fetched because the bottom line is that ther is a principle at stake. If you were as sure as is humanely possible that torture would provide results would you sanction it? If the answer is no then thats fine. For me the answer is yes and I suspect it is for most other people.
The fact is we live in a democracy which allows us to whine at people who have to make horrible decisions whiles enjoying the benefits.
Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?
I will answer your question TJ but first answer mine.
Would you torture 1 person to save a 000?
No and I have said so. Its never justifiable.
Not that the situation you describe could ever occur anyway. Its just complete nonsense with no logic behind it
Not that the situation you describe could ever occur anyway.
It doesnt matter though does it.
Its illegal in international law,
I go back to my point on the previous page TJ - what's illegal? where [u]exactly[/u] do you draw the line between perfectly legal and acceptable interrogation techniques and "torture"?
Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?
This situation could never occur anyway
i bet them nipple clamp things would be better than a bit of dripping water........... 🙂
@surfer - your argument is specious. In the real world, we are never in this situation. It only ever happens in fiction (e.g. "24").
In the real world, if you start down the slippery road of torturing people "only when you're sure it's OK", you pretty quickly get into a rotten state.
What do you think the reaction of the friends and family of the people you torture will be? Won't they want to seek revenge?
What effect will it have on the torturers themselves? Will they end up becoming increasingly confused about where the line lies and whether they've crossed it?
What do you think other people in other parts of the world will make of it? Won't they follow our example, but with fewer constraints. They'll just get on and torture whoever they fancy. And we won't be able to condemn them.
In reality, you won't ever save any lives in these situations, but you *will* start down a road to a place that is very hard to get back from.
Surfer.
You don't know which person amongst a group of people have the info you want - so you have to torture them until you get to the person with the info.
By the very nature of the fact you are trying to find info you don't know wh has it and who does not.
Zulu - thats why we have international law. Its clear and obvious.
No and I have said so. Its never justifiable.
If thats your position then fine however I would find it inconceivable in the unrealistic situation I point to that most people would not use some technique (for this I mean an act that could be considered "torture) to gain information to save lives.
Do you have a scale of torture that you would consider? Would you balk at waterboarding but accept a small amount of sleep deprivation?
i bet them nipple clamp things would be better than a bit of dripping water...........
Hey, let's look up waterboarding on Wikipedia shall we?
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death
Are you sure this is ok?
@surfer - your argument is specious. In the real world, we are never in this situation. It only ever happens in fiction (e.g. "24").In the real world, if you start down the slippery road of torturing people "only when you're sure it's OK", you pretty quickly get into a rotten state.
What do you think the reaction of the friends and family of the people you torture will be? Won't they want to seek revenge?
What effect will it have on the torturers themselves? Will they end up becoming increasingly confused about where the line lies and whether they've crossed it?
What do you think other people in other parts of the world will make of it? Won't they follow our example, but with fewer constraints. They'll just get on and torture whoever they fancy. And we won't be able to condemn them.
In reality, you won't ever save any lives in these situations, but you *will* start down a road to a place that is very hard to get back from.
You may well undertake a full anlysis however the "ticking bomb" scenario doesnt allow that luxury. As I have said this is clearly an unlikely scenario however the point is you have to make a decision. My position on this is clear however and given only a few minutes to consider my action future foreign policy, how relased captives may view my actions or how this would impact future prisoner relations would not be high on my agenda.
Do you have a scale of torture that you would consider? Would you balk at waterboarding but accept a small amount of sleep deprivation?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Are you sure this is ok?
I dont think anyone is saying its "ok" if you think that is my position then you have misunderstood.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
But thats not an answer is it.
Sometimes torture is alright... every time someone starts a helmet thread to suck TJ in for example.
In all seriousness... i couldn't torture another human or animal... and i wouldn't want somebody doing it on my behalf!
Until any of us are put in an ACTUAL situation where its suggested as a solution to uncover info that could save others lives or the lives of people we love i dont think any of us can accurately predict what we'd do.
i hope that none of us are ever put in that situation.
anyone seen the film "rendition"?
also, i find sitting on someones chest so they are immobilised and tickling their face with a piece of grass works a treat........ 👿
Surfer no - its an absolute. Torture is never justifiable in any circumstance
So now you answer the question. You know one person in a village has the information you want. How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?
[i]You may well undertake a full anlysis however the "ticking bomb" scenario doesnt allow that luxury. As I have said this is clearly an unlikely scenario however the point is you have to make a decision.[/i]
There was an interesting interview with an ex head of MI5/6 on R4 earlier this year covering this point. I think he described the 'ticking bomb' as a fictional scenario rather than an unlikely one, and in all his years of service had never come across and such scenario existing. He then went on to explain that if such a situation existed the person just needs to keep handing out plausibly incorrect information till the bomb has exploded.
Zulu - thats why we have international law. Its clear and obvious.
TJ - No its not, International law prohibits "[i]Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...[/i]
What [u]exactly[/u] constitutes [b]severe[/b] pain or suffering?
as an example does, in your opinion, sleep deprivation, fulfil the [u]legal[/u] definition of torture?
Its only not obvious if you are hard of thinking.
MSP:I would say that if those sanctioning torture are so convinced by its ability to save lives, they should be willing to do time for their actions.
At the moment their is no personal cost to the decision makers who declare war and authorise torture...
how about the torturer personally gets to experience the same torture they enact? It could be done with machines so no further blame. If Bush believes waterboarding is fine,let him experience it. If corporal P. tortures an Iraqi suspect, he/she can try the fun too.
Surfer no - its an absolute. Torture is never justifiable in any circumstanceSo now you answer the question. You know one person in a village has the information you want. How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?
Thats not the same question you asked earlier though is it.
There was an interesting interview with an ex head of MI5/6 on R4 earlier this year covering this point. I think he described the 'ticking bomb' as a fictional scenario rather than an unlikely one, and in all his years of service had never come across and such scenario existing. He then went on to explain that if such a situation existed the person just needs to keep handing out plausibly incorrect information till the bomb has exploded
Of course it is ficticious 🙄 The principle remains the same and is not changed by the fact the captive gives false information. To try to qualify that misses the point.
The question is would you "try" to gain the information to save a 000 innocent peopl by using torture?
There is a fine line between interrogation and torture. As per the point above, if you have ever been sleep deprived for long periods of time, you will know how horrific it can be. There are some who believe that so called truth drugs are the way to go, however these are unreliable as the person often loses the line between fact and fiction in the drugged up state.
The issue remains that without some form of interrogation beyond questioning then you have nothing, and by that very point, interrogation would cease to exist as anyone can just sit there in silence. What is the solution? Financial incentives? Political incentives? I don't know. For most they are not interested in financial or political gains.
Water-boarding is one of the most horrific things you can put a person through and it quite rightly should be illegal. There is no magical solution to the legal and non-threatening extraction of data.
Until any of us are put in an ACTUAL situation where its suggested as a solution to uncover info that could save others lives or the lives of people we love i dont think any of us can accurately predict what we'd do.i hope that none of us are ever put in that situation.
Thats pretty much my position its irritating when people can be so dogmatic from their place of comfort while at the same time other people are making the decisions.
Its the same question surfer and you won't answer.
[i]Of course it is ficticious The principle remains the same and is not changed by the fact the captive gives false information. To try to qualify that misses the point.[/i]
Ah, well I think using fictional scenarios to then extrapolate to real world usage misses the point 🙂
Surfer - its the same question an you won't answer it.
that is a scenario where you would have to torture innocents to get the info you want.
So - you say its justifiable to torture one person to save thousands. Is it justifiable to torture thousands to save one knowing some of those thousands are innocent?
You have asked several questions, all based around the same theme but different.
How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?
How many innocent people is it justifiable to torture to save one life?
How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children
Prioritise them by all means or just higlight one.
Just answer it surfer.
ts only not obvious if you are hard of thinking.
Come on TJ - you're avoiding the question!
What exactly constitutes torture? you're repeatedly stated that international law prohibits torture, but fail to admit that the legal definition is very grey and imprecise.
What [u]exactly[/u] constitutes [b]severe[/b] pain and suffering?
I'll offer you a couple of easy examples:
Sleep Deprivation
Tasering
None of these are life threatening, none is likely to result in permanent lasting physical harm or fear of death in the subject - which of them [u]legally[/u] amounts to Torture?
Surfer - its the same question an you won't answer it.that is a scenario where you would have to torture innocents to get the info you want.
So - you say its justifiable to torture one person to save thousands. Is it justifiable to torture thousands to save one knowing some of those thousands are innocent?
Its not so I await your reply.
I think its conceivable that many people would disagree with you and would agree (no matter how distasteful) that it is acceptable to inflict torture on an individual if they felt their was a high degree of possibilty that they had information that could save their lives or lead to their release.
I can forsee a scenario that allows for the torture of lots to save one.
If Ton sits on your chest and tickles you with grass, is that torture?
Just answer it surfer.
Pick one.
The miracle of copy and paste even saves you typing.
Zulu - if you don't understand I cannot explain it to you. Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.
None of these are life threatening, none is likely to result in permanent lasting physical harm or fear of death in the subject - which of them legally amounts to Torture?
In the secure world of TJ is pushing an arm up somebodies back torture?
Zulu - if you don't understand I cannot explain it to you. Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.
Biggest Cop out ever. Answer the question!
Surfer - answer the question.
"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"
"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"
But they aren't talking about saving just 1 life tho...
Zulu - you are being ridiculous even by your standards. Tehre is a legal definition. its clear and obvious.