Announcement

**Underseer** · February 1, 2003, 01:43

Originally posted by arslankhan

I hear that alot, how you only get bad information from torture, but I dont get it. If someone clamped electrodes to my nipples and had their hand on the power switch, you can bet your ass I'd tell them anything they wanted to know!

That's precisely the point. The torturer gets told whatever the prisoner thinks the torturer wants to hear. That's not the same thing as the truth. If all you want is to be told what you want to hear or what you expect to hear, hire a yesman. No need to get all elaborate with thumbscrews. The information is about as useful.

Heck, there's a semi-famous incident where American prisoners deliberately gave bad information under torture. (The incident changed the military's policy on what American military personnel can and can't do when taken prisoner.) I hardly think Americans are the only ones who can think to do this.

The short version is that when you torture someone, they'll say whatever it takes to make the torture stop. The mistake torturers make is thinking that's the same thing as the truth. It isn't.

I'm not saying torture is 100% invalid in every situation. There are times when bad information is better than no information, it's just that the circumstance is very rare.

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 01:51

The answer is no.

Torturing, even for gaining intelligence, is crossing the line between good and evil. So is attacking a country pre-emptively BTW.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:00

Sava: What if your wife/parents/children were going to be killed unless some SOB gave you the secret code which would stop the nuclear bomb? Would you torture him then knowing that both you and an exntire city would cease to exist if you didn't? Also in this situation you wouldn't have to worry about wrong anwsers because you'd be able to type in the code and check his anwsers right as he says them.

Kind of makes the point that torture is justified in certain extreme situations, no?

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:05

If someone is sociopathic enough to set off a nuclear device like that, torturing him to get some code would not work. Torture is never justified. And if that situation was real, I still wouldn't cross that line. Because even though I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, I think that once we die, there is something. And I believe that eventually we are held accountable for our actions. If not, if there's nothing, then we're dead and it doesn't matter.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:14

Ok, let me put you in a real life situation where torture was used and you tell me what would you do. During the Algerian war the commander of a French garrison recieved word that the rebles were going to attack and massacre an entire village of people but the informant only said the general area of the village not the actual name of the village.

There are five different villages in the region all of which are spread out so that you can only defend one of them at a time. By good fortune you have captured a high ranking enemy agent whom you believe has knowldge of the coming massacre. What do you do?

If you don't torture him then you have a 1/5 chance of choicing the right village, if you divid your forces in fifths then you won't be able to stop the massacre and you'll probably lose 1/5 of your men, if you do nothing a whole village dies, but if you torture the man then you might save the village/stop the rebels and possibly even end the rebellion by capturing the enemy leaders. What do you do?

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:17

I take my chances of choosing the right village. I'm not responsible for the actions of others, only my own. I'll say it again. Torture is never justified... it's a line between what is good and what is evil... intentions and motives are irrelevant. When a government makes a commitment to be for human rights, for justice, for freedom, and for democracy; it ceases to be all of those things when it crosses that line.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:18

BTW During the Battle of Algiers things like this really happened. It's quite a moral delema don't you think? Do you use torture to save lives or do you act noble knowing full well that hundreds of people are going to die because you made the distiction?

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:19

Dilemna indeed, but moral choices in life often come with sacrifice.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:22

In moral terms; when does your obligation to act morally start to be counter weighted by our moral obligation to help our fellow man? In other words how many villager's lives have to be on the line before we cross Satan's rubicon?

When does the common good of preventing death out weight the individual harm of torturing one man? A man could make a perfectly logical case by saying torturing one man results in one person, deserving, person being put through pain while not using torture results in hundreds or even thousands of innocent people being killed. Since one decision results in zero deaths and the other in a great many deaths wouldn't a moral person choice to save lives?

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:29

Numbers are irrelevant... if those villagers are going to die because of the actions of others, than so be it. The glory and goodness of saving lives does not justify the evil actions. If the prisoner in question can't be swayed to save the lives of the innocents, then torturing him would not reveal the information needed. It's the simple psychology of a sociopathic mind. The kind of mind that feels no remorse is the kind of mind that would not give in to torture, or that would lie and give a false answer to that torture. The outcome would simply be that you failed to save the lives and you tortured another human being. It's a no-win scenario. Kobayashi Maru if you will... but the only thing you can hope for is to not do evil.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:34

I can defently see some men not giving in to torture so you could very well be right that you end up losing the village and being a torturer. That said the villagers deaths may not just be the fault of some psychopath; after all you may just have had the power to prevent it all from happening. If you can prevent something like this then don't you have a moral obligation to all means available? Don't extraordinary circomstances call for extraordinary measures?

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:37

I'd do everything in my power. But torturing, or any other act of evil, is not a weapon in my arsenal. Here's a question... given the same situation, would you torture a child if it gave you the information?

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:52

hmmm, a hard one. I doubt any of us knows for sure what we'd do until we're there. Still I think I'd try something like Chinese water torture to force the person (child or other wise) to tell me how to save the village. In my mind saving a few hundred people is worth the temporary discomfort of one person plus water torture wouldn't case any serious long term harm. It's almost entirely psychological; unless he drOwns of course.

**Dinner** · February 1, 2003, 02:55

Here's another question for you all. Are all forms of torture equally reprehensible or are some forms off limits while others are with in bounds? For instance vivisection might be out but forcing people to stand for long periods of time or be hung by their heels might be in.

**Sava** · February 1, 2003, 02:56

well, evil is a slippery slope... if one day its okay to torture a man to save a village, I shudder to think what the next day brings.

Announcement

Is torture ever justified?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment