Torture

markwalker

there are 60million plus people in this country a number so vast its impossible to visualise, at what point does 1 person (simple to visualise and identify with) have rights that superceed the safety and security of all the others?

For the record i dont approve of torture but definitions of torture are very broad. But should it be a practical if unpleasent means to an end?

DaSy

No

disgruntledgoat

No. If they use it on one out of sixty million to further the fight against terrorism, whats to stop them using it on 1000 more?

Or 10,000 more in a fight against some new enemy and you finding yourself on the wrong side of it?

It's barbarism and I thought that was what we were fighting against.

Chip \'oyler

DaSy wrote:

No

Really? Not if that one person holds information that can save thousands of lives?

andrewjoseph

Information gained by torture is not reliable. Ask the witches.... oh you can't, they were all killed because they confessed during torture that they were witches so that the torture would stop.

DaSy

Chip \'oyler wrote:

DaSy wrote:

No

Really? Not if that one person holds information that can save thousands of lives?

Yes, really...

Anonymous

DaSy wrote:

Chip \'oyler wrote:

DaSy wrote:

No

Really? Not if that one person holds information that can save thousands of lives?

Yes, really...

So, for example, someone knows something that will lead to your family and hundreds of others not being killed and you still feel the same?

We aren't talking about evidence here, we are talking about information that may lead to saving lives.

Just playing devil's advocate BTW...

northernneil

theres no right or wrong answer to this thread

Anonymous

northernneil wrote:

theres no right or wrong answer to this thread

Apart from what you just said...

clanton

No it is never justifiable. The ends do not justify the means.

northernneil

NapoleonD wrote:

northernneil wrote:

theres no right or wrong answer to this thread

Apart from what you just said...

how do you mean ?

I meant that for 1 person they wouldnt think twice, for someone else they would never ever justify it, peoples feeling and morals are different on the subject so there can never be a right or wrong

.... or have I got it worng ...again :?

Anonymous

clanton wrote:

No it is never justifiable. The ends do not justify the means.

They would if it was my wife and kids at stake. IMO.

DaSy

NapoleonD wrote:

So, for example, someone knows something that will lead to your family and hundreds of others not being killed and you still feel the same?

We aren't talking about evidence here, we are talking about information that may lead to saving lives.

Just playing devil's advocate BTW...

I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same, no. But then I don't feel that a parking ticket is just when it inconveniences me.

Look at how many of the miscarriages of justice have been perpetrated by forced confessions under duress etc.

Playing devils advocate again, if your wife was mistakenly believed to have committed a crime, would you see it as okay for her to be tortured just to make sure she was telling the truth?

Anonymous

northernneil wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

northernneil wrote:

theres no right or wrong answer to this thread

Apart from what you just said...

how do you mean ?

I meant that for 1 person they wouldnt think twice, for someone else they would never ever justify it, peoples feeling and morals are different on the subject so there can never be a right or wrong

.... or have I got it worng ...again :?

?????

I was saying that you were right, there is no wrong or right answer...

Anonymous

DaSy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

So, for example, someone knows something that will lead to your family and hundreds of others not being killed and you still feel the same?

We aren't talking about evidence here, we are talking about information that may lead to saving lives.

Just playing devil's advocate BTW...

I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same, no. But then I don't feel that a parking ticket is just when it inconveniences me.

Look at how many of the miscarriages of justice have been perpetrated by forced confessions under duress etc.

Playing devils advocate again, if your wife was mistakenly believed to have committed a crime, would you see it as okay for her to be tortured just to make sure she was telling the truth?

I'm not talking about confessions. Torture rightly renders any confession null and void. Fact. I'm talking about information. e.g. there is a known plot to bomb a shopping centre and this person knows who is going to do it and how...

northernneil

ahh sorry - stupid blonde moment

disgruntledgoat

NapoleonD wrote:

DaSy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

So, for example, someone knows something that will lead to your family and hundreds of others not being killed and you still feel the same?

We aren't talking about evidence here, we are talking about information that may lead to saving lives.

Just playing devil's advocate BTW...

I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same, no. But then I don't feel that a parking ticket is just when it inconveniences me.

Look at how many of the miscarriages of justice have been perpetrated by forced confessions under duress etc.

Playing devils advocate again, if your wife was mistakenly believed to have committed a crime, would you see it as okay for her to be tortured just to make sure she was telling the truth?

I'm not talking about confessions. Torture rightly renders any confession null and void. Fact. I'm talking about information. e.g. there is a known plot to bomb a shopping centre and this person knows who is going to do it and how...

Look at it this way, you're an intelligence officer captured by a foreign power. hostile to your country. You know where the first wave of the expected ground assault against them will fall and they decide to torture you to find out.

Is that ok? Or different?

DaSy

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm not talking about confessions. Torture rightly renders any confession null and void. Fact. I'm talking about information. e.g. there is a known plot to bomb a shopping centre and this person knows who is going to do it and how...

So how do you classify this legalised torture, what is allowed and what isn't. What happens if this person turns out not to know about the bomb, maybe he is mentally unstable and likes to confess to things for the attention. It's all too late once you torture this person and find that out.

How far do you go, if they still don't confess, do you keep torturing them until they die, and if so we then have a kangaroo court and lynch mob sanctioned by the state...?

Slow Downcp

The question wasn't asking whether torture was okay to get a connfession for a crime committed - it's whether it's justifiable to obtain information that conquently saves numerous lives. (That's how I read it anyway).

If the difference was my family would not be alive if the information wasn't gained, then yes - I'm in favour. Most people will say the same. Those that don't are mostly lying to appear politically correct.

If, by using the same methods on one man, the twin towers attack and 7-11 in London could have been avoided, and subsequently the war in Afgahnistan that has cost countless lives how can people say it is unforgivable?

teagar

It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.

It's what the torturers say to themselves to convince them that the torture is a worthwhile exercise, when it clearly isn't.

I'd agree to anything if it would stop me being tortured.

Anonymous

DaSy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm not talking about confessions. Torture rightly renders any confession null and void. Fact. I'm talking about information. e.g. there is a known plot to bomb a shopping centre and this person knows who is going to do it and how...

So how do you classify this legalised torture, what is allowed and what isn't. What happens if this person turns out not to know about the bomb, maybe he is mentally unstable and likes to confess to things for the attention. It's all too late once you torture this person and find that out.

How far do you go, if they still don't confess, do you keep torturing them until they die, and if so we then have a kangaroo court and lynch mob sanctioned by the state...?

I'm not talking about confessions. The information gleaned wouldn't be evidence, it would be intelligence used to prevent a fatal terrorist attack.

The whole thing is a complete minefield with so many opportunities for failure on a huge scale.

I'd like to say that torture should never be an option.

However, if it was my wife and kids at stake, crack on...

DaSy

Slow Downcp wrote:

If the difference was my family would not be alive if the information wasn't gained, then yes - I'm in favour. Most people will say the same. Those that don't are mostly lying to appear politically correct.

What we would do as individuals in a desperate situation, and what should be state sanctioned and allowable by law are very different.

DaSy

NapoleonD wrote:

DaSy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm not talking about confessions. Torture rightly renders any confession null and void. Fact. I'm talking about information. e.g. there is a known plot to bomb a shopping centre and this person knows who is going to do it and how...

So how do you classify this legalised torture, what is allowed and what isn't. What happens if this person turns out not to know about the bomb, maybe he is mentally unstable and likes to confess to things for the attention. It's all too late once you torture this person and find that out.

How far do you go, if they still don't confess, do you keep torturing them until they die, and if so we then have a kangaroo court and lynch mob sanctioned by the state...?

I'm not talking about confessions. The information gleaned wouldn't be evidence, it would be intelligence used to prevent a fatal terrorist attack.

The whole thing is a complete minefield with so many opportunities for failure on a huge scale.

I'd like to say that torture should never be an option.

However, if it was my wife and kids at stake, crack on...

I think we are getting into semantics there, so substitute confess for provide the information you want, and the question still remains. What if it turns out they don't know what you want to discover, how far do you go if they don't provide the info you require?

Percy Vera

What brought all this on? 24?
Jack Bauer always knows when they know something

Chip \'oyler

I don't know about you lot - but I was forced to watch Miss Congeniality 2 last night - I would have preferred a day in Guantanemo Bay after that

finchy

So this question is basically about what would happen if a terrorist has been captured, and a bomb is going to go off some time soon.

Ignoring the other issues mentioned already, if I've put a bomb on, say, the train to Leicester, what's to stop me "cracking" after one minute of torture, and telling my interrogators that I've put the bomb on the train to Birmingham? As Teagar pointed out, any information I give would not necessarily be accurate.

My understanding of police intelligence preventing terrorist attacks is that the police have been following suspect groups for long periods of time (you don't plan a bombing in a weekend) and carefully build up evidence which allows them to prevent attacks and convict plotters. Which is fair enough.

DaSy

My wife made me go to the cinema once to watch Sliding Doors!

I think that it was legal on her part, but hardly in the spirit of the Geneva Convention.

I feel your pain Chip...

KeimanP

Whichever way you look at it torture is always wrong and can't be justified. If it was related to you personally where the person(s) close to you were at the point of attack then you could probably sanction/justify it to yourself as a worthwile means of gathering intelligence to prevent there potential suffering. This doesn't make torture right, it just means that you would do anything for the ones that you care about.

What are people defining as torture? Is it just being considered the physcial side or the mental (Using words to get a reaction so they believe that those close to them are at risk if they don't cooperate?)

Robert

Anonymous

Yes, torture away.

You cannot calmly sit at a keyboard, in a comfy chair, sipping a latte and comprehend actions and situations that are beyond the pale.

Torture for critical intelligence not for evidence.

Read some Kipling and ask yourself "IF".

clanton

No it is not merely being glib about it. State sactioned torture is terrorism and is never justifiable. These "what ifs" are nonsense - the situation doesn't arise. If you have to torture someone to gain information then your intelligence is by definition not complete - how can you even be sure the "suspect" is the one with the knowledge you seek?

softlad

andrewjoseph wrote:

Information gained by torture is not reliable. Ask the witches.... oh you can't, they were all killed because they confessed during torture that they were witches so that the torture would stop.

or sometimes they used the 'ducking stool' - if the accused drowned, she was innocent. But if she survived, she was evidently a witch, and would then be burned alive...