View Poll Results: What do you do? READ OP!
SCENARIO 1: THE MILITIA BOMB: 1 3.13%
I wouldn't use torture, even if it means the bomb goes off. 17 53.13%
I'd ask an expert to use do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 2 6.25%
I'd ask an expert to start off with lighter methods, then move onto harsher ones if they don't work. 6 18.75%
I'd ask an expert to break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 4 12.50%
I'd personally do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 1 3.13%
I'd personally start with lighter methods, then move onto harsher methods if they don't work. 3 9.38%
I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 4 12.50%
I'd do something else (bear in mind all other methods have failed). 3 9.38%
SCENARIO 2: THE STOLEN NUKE: 1 3.13%
I wouldn't use torture, even if it means the nuke goes off. 15 46.88%
I'd ask an expert to do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 2 6.25%
I'd ask an expert to start with lighter methods, then move onto harsher methods if they don't work. 5 15.63%
I'd ask an expert to break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 6 18.75%
I'd personally do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 1 3.13%
I'd personally start off with lighter methods, then move onto harsher methods if they don't work. 4 12.50%
I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 4 12.50%
I'd do something else (bear in mind all other methods have failed). 5 15.63%
SCENARIO 3: THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL: 1 3.13%
I wouldn't use torture, even if it means the worst happens. 14 43.75%
I'd ask an expert to do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 1 3.13%
I'd ask an expert to start with lighter methods, then move onto harsher methods if they don't work. 2 6.25%
I'd ask an expert to break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 3 9.38%
I'd personally do it, but nothing that would cause permanent damage. 1 3.13%
I'd personally start off with lighter methods, then move onto harsher methods if they don't work. 3 9.38%
I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away. 14 43.75%
I'd do something else (bear in mind all other methods have failed). 4 12.50%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2012, 11:51 AM
Mr. Kobayashi Mr. Kobayashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
Torture and ticking bombs - what would you do?

Purely as a thought experiment, I'd like to see reactions to the idea of a ticking bomb and the ethics of torture made popular by Jack Bauer in 24. The first two scenarios are inspired by 24, the last by a raft of kidnap films from Hollywood. In all the scenarios below, to avoid repetition - standard interrogation has been exhausted, as have attempts at coercion/bribery/offers of immunity etc. In all the scenarios, you can do the dirty work yourself or ask an ominous looking man with a mysterious briefcase. Assume you're in a position of authority in all the scenarios.

On the poll; I've put it as a multiple choice, the scenarios are in ALL CAPS; I had to put them in the format of another poll question but the actual options are below.

Scenario 1: The Feds have captured a man involved in an extremist militia group. Through surveillance they have determined he was/is involved in the planning of an upcoming terrorist attack. Specifically, an impending bomb attack in a populated area, like a shopping mall or high street - somewhere that will potentially cause hundreds of casualties. Authorities are sweeping all likely buildings, but with no concrete details it's unlikely to be successful. Under standard interrogation he reveals that the bomb has been planted and the clock is ticking - it will explode in about 12 hours, but refuses to divulge its location. What do you do?

Scenario 2: The CIA have picked up a leading terror suspect. He is suspected of stealing a nuclear device from the Ruskies and according to surveillance the CIA has firm reason to believe that he is currently shipping it to your country - you have 12 hours maximum before the ship reaches any destination in your country, figuring in loading and unloading times. Unfortunately they haven't picked up the name of the ship or its destination, and once again he'd refusing to talk. The authorities are on the lookout for suspicious activity around ports, but without more concrete details there's a good chance that the stolen nuke will slip through and cause potentially millions of casualties. He refuses to say anything. What do you do?

Scenario 3: A ruthless criminal gang have kidnapped your close loved ones - wife/mother/sister/daughter/husband/father/brother/son, delete as applicable. You receive note asking for a ransom of $1 million in 12 hours. The police tell you that in 100% of cases involving this particular gang, even if the ransom is delivered the captees are murdered anyway. Fortunately meticulous forensics performed on the ransom note - DNA and fingerprints - are already on the police radar and they pick up the suspect. They recognise him as one of the head-honchos of the gang who, if he doesn't know where your family are, at least knows where to find someone who does. He's the only lead you have, but isn't saying a word. What do you do?

BBC link to similar questions; I'm wondering where the Dope stacks up.
  #2  
Old 01-22-2012, 02:07 PM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,208
On the 3rd question, you missed an option, how about take his family and torture them in front of him.

...and also, if any other members of the gang are known, they too can have the same treatment - stuff the trials, and due course yadda yadda yadda. I would bet a few would take up these as options, and even if your loved ones are recovered, the gang dies, they would have to - since they are an ongoing public danger.
  #3  
Old 01-22-2012, 02:19 PM
Rachellelogram Rachellelogram is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,108
A stolen nuke... a snuke??
  #4  
Old 01-22-2012, 05:36 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
If torture actually worked...our civilization would likely be a bit different. Testimony taken under torture might be admissible in court. There might be no right against self-incrimination.

If, some day, someone develops a working lie detector, or a foolproof truth drug, civilization will have to adapt.

At this point in time, torture is about as effective as an astrological forecast or an Ouija Board reading. It might be true...but it isn't particularly dependable. Ask me again when it is about as effective as, say, short-range weather forecasting.
  #5  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:07 PM
drastic_quench drastic_quench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,173
I'd hold out. You'll never get me to talk.
  #6  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:20 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,238
Time to fight the hypothetical.

How about this scenario?

You've got the terrorist. You know he's planted the nuclear weapon somewhere in New York City, but you have no idea where. There's no way to search everywhere. You've only got one chance. And you've tried the namby-pamby legal methods of persuasion that those pencil-pushers back at headquarters approve. But you make your own rules.

So you decide to torture the guy for the information. After screaming and thrashing for half an hour he finally breaks. He can't take it anymore. He tells you that the bomb is hidden in a trash bin on West 23rd Street. You get on the radio and order all your agents to West 23rd Street. They race to the trash bin, open it up with a minute to spare, and find....nothing. One minute later the bomb, which was planted in a trash bin on East 96th Street, explodes.

Again, people fail to understand how torture works. Torture will work to get the victim to say something that will make the torture stop. It does not force the victim to tell the truth, it forces the victim to tell the torturer something he wants to hear.

So for instance, if there's a locked safe and a combination, and the torturer will try any combination you give him, and continue the torture until the safe is open, well, eventually that safe is going to open. This is because the torturer can verify whether the victim is telling the truth extremely quickly, and start back in with the torturing right away.

But these scenarios are different. Say your family is hidden somewhere in another city, and he's torturing you to get the location of your family, and when you tell him, he's going to drive over there and kill them. Well, what exactly is your incentive to tell the truth? OW! The torture! OK, I'll tell you the truth! It's 15225 West 96th Street! And then he leaves on his journey. Can't you see that in this situation the victim makes the torture stop whether he tells the truth or lies?

Or, what is very common in governmental interrogations, tell us the names of your accomplices. Were you working with Bob Smith, the noted terrorist? No? OK, now some torture for you. Now tell us, were you working with Bob Smith? Still you say no? OK, more torture. Oh, now you admit you are working with Bob Smith? Good boy! Now, sign this confession of your terrorism. You won't sign? We know you are a terrorist, so sign the papers or it is more torture.

Notice how this works. The torturer wants you to implicate Bob Smith. The torture continues until you implicate Bob Smith. And in this case, everyone will eventually implicate Bob Smith. It doesn't matter whether you worked with Bob Smith or not. In typical cases, the torturer is deliberately forcing you to say what both you and the torturer know is a lie. The point isn't to gather information, the point is to prove to you that you will betray your friends and family and hand them over to the same treatment in order get them to stop.

So in the case of the ticking nuclear bomb, you want to know the location of the bomb. How does the terrorist stop the torture? By telling the truth, or by lying? If either a lie or the truth will stop the torture, why would he tell the truth? All he has to do is create lies until the bomb goes off. How long is that? How many stories does he have to spin that you can't check out? If he tells enough stories, how can tell you the truth and how do you know which story was true and which was a lie? If telling the truth doesn't stop the torture, if when the victim tells the truth and you continue to torture him, then how does torture help you get the truth?

Last edited by Lemur866; 01-22-2012 at 06:20 PM.
  #7  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:28 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,238
And besides, Scenario 3 MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

Why would a gang kidnap people, hold them for ransom, then always murder them? Doesn't that mean that there's no point in paying the ransom? I know that the purpose of the hypothetical is to exclude the option of paying ransom, but it makes no sense.
  #8  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:33 PM
Mr. Kobayashi Mr. Kobayashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
All true, but I'm talking about where all other options have failed and they're just not talking. Hence why it's a thought experiment; do you settle for nada or authorise a bit of rough and tumble and risk misinformation (along with the, y'know, moral implications - which is why the stakes are different in each scenario - is one enough to risk it as opposed to another).
  #9  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:38 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kobayashi View Post
All true, but I'm talking about where all other options have failed and they're just not talking. Hence why it's a thought experiment; do you settle for nada or authorise a bit of rough and tumble and risk misinformation (along with the, y'know, moral implications - which is why the stakes are different in each scenario - is one enough to risk it as opposed to another).
But if you already know, going into the scenario, that torture will not be effective, then why try it? Would you bring in a psychic on the off chance that maybe everything you know about psychics is wrong and they do have special powers? Would you suddenly start praying even though you've been an atheist all your life? Would you start praying to random gods just in case you were wrong about the one you picked?

I'm not sure if the point of this poll is to suss out torture advocates who don't have the grapes to do the torturing themselves, or if it's the torture equivalent of "no atheists in foxholes;" that is, you think people who are against torture will suddenly see the error of their ways when the bombs are ticking.
  #10  
Old 01-22-2012, 06:42 PM
Mr. Kobayashi Mr. Kobayashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
But if you already know, going into the scenario, that torture will not be effective, then why try it? Would you bring in a psychic on the off chance that maybe everything you know about psychics is wrong and they do have special powers? Would you suddenly start praying even though you've been an atheist all your life? Would you start praying to random gods just in case you were wrong about the one you picked?

I'm not sure if the point of this poll is to suss out torture advocates who don't have the grapes to do the torturing themselves, or if it's the torture equivalent of "no atheists in foxholes;" that is, you think people who are against torture will suddenly see the error of their ways when the bombs are ticking.
Actually as per the OP I want to see the percentages of people who think torture is acceptable is some extreme cases vs the percentage of people who think it is acceptable in no cases whatsoever. Obviously if you think torture is ineffective that will factor into it, but that's hardly a uniform sentiment.
  #11  
Old 01-23-2012, 02:12 AM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Well, going straight to the morality...

If (big hypothetical, but let's grant it) IF it worked, then, yeah, I might use it. Ordinarily utilitarian morals suggest so, and I'm at least partly an utilitarian.

But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?

Utilitarian morals produce "utility monsters." Who would be a monster?
  #12  
Old 01-23-2012, 03:04 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Again, people fail to understand how torture works. Torture will work to get the victim to say something that will make the torture stop. It does not force the victim to tell the truth, it forces the victim to tell the torturer something he wants to hear.

So for instance, if there's a locked safe and a combination, and the torturer will try any combination you give him, and continue the torture until the safe is open, well, eventually that safe is going to open. This is because the torturer can verify whether the victim is telling the truth extremely quickly, and start back in with the torturing right away.
Actually it isn't all that reliable even then. Extreme trauma - like torture - can distort the memory; it's quite possible that the victim may simply forget the combination due to the torture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Utilitarian morals produce "utility monsters." Who would be a monster?
And that's another problem. The calm professional who only tortures when necessary to discover the truth? They do not exist. It doesn't ever work like that. Torturers are monsters and fanatics, and they will inevitably act like it. They are going to torture for all sorts of reasons including their own amusement; not "just when necessary". They aren't going to torture to get the truth; they are either too irrational to care what the truth is or the torture is a goal in itself.
  #13  
Old 01-23-2012, 03:20 AM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,292
General Bethlehem: "Which way did he go?"

Tortured captive: "He went east."

General Bethlehem: "Send a patrol east. Send three more north, south and west.....

....they'd better find him east."

(Great scene in The Postman.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs
And that's another problem. The calm professional who only tortures when necessary to discover the truth? They do not exist. It doesn't ever work like that. Torturers are monsters and fanatics, and they will inevitably act like it. They are going to torture for all sorts of reasons including their own amusement; not "just when necessary". They aren't going to torture to get the truth; they are either too irrational to care what the truth is or the torture is a goal in itself.
Ya feel like providing us a citation - ideally to some kind of published study or survey - bearing this out? Or is it just something you assumed?

French General Paul Aussaresses was a prominent interrogator and torturer during France's war with Algeria, and he spoke up in favor of torturing terrorists for information after 9/11. By all accounts, he was a calm professional, not a sadist who enjoyed inflicting pain.

Last edited by Argent Towers; 01-23-2012 at 03:20 AM.
  #14  
Old 01-23-2012, 03:45 AM
spanna spanna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers View Post
General Bethlehem: "Which way did he go?"

Tortured captive: "He went east."

General Bethlehem: "Send a patrol east. Send three more north, south and west.....

....they'd better find him east."

(Great scene in The Postman.)
What was the point in torturing him if you are going to send patrols N S E & W anyway

Why not send the patrols and not torture him

(I haven't seen the film so don't know the full context)
  #15  
Old 01-23-2012, 04:50 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers View Post
French General Paul Aussaresses was a prominent interrogator and torturer during France's war with Algeria, and he spoke up in favor of torturing terrorists for information after 9/11.
And Hanns Scharff, who worked for those well known humanitarians Nazi Germany opposed torture as useless, and earned the nickname "the Master Interrogator" by gaining a large amount of useful intelligence without ever raising his voice much less torturing anyone. And the actual professional interrogators employed by America opposed the use of torture for the same reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers View Post
By all accounts, he was a calm professional, not a sadist who enjoyed inflicting pain.
He tortured people when the uselessness of torture for information gathering has been known for longer than he's been alive; therefore he was either irrational or sadistic.

In fact, just follow up the link "Torture during the Algerian War" on the page you linked to:

Quote:
Although Aussaresses claimed that torture was an efficient way to fight against what he saw as FLN terrorism, recent historical research[6] demonstrate that, contrary to the popular "ticking time bomb scenario", torture was not used for short-term intelligence purposes. Instead, the aim of torture was not to make people talk but to affect the group as a whole and to break the civilian population's morale. Torture was fully a part of the psychological warfare methods as theorized by General Salan and others (Branche, 200
In other words, not for information gathering but as a form of terrorism. And I don't think anyone is arguing that it's an ineffective means of spreading terror.
  #16  
Old 01-23-2012, 06:14 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers View Post
French General Paul Aussaresses was a prominent interrogator and torturer during France's war with Algeria, and he spoke up in favor of torturing terrorists for information after 9/11. By all accounts, he was a calm professional, not a sadist who enjoyed inflicting pain.
Um...I hate to break this to you, but the French lost the Algerian War (1954-1962) and along with it control of Algeria. So, while this can't be called a definitive counterexample of the effectiveness of torture, it stands about as high on the list of effective advice as Khruschev's "We will [outlive] you!" claim regarding Soviet Communism.

I've actually spoken with several experienced interrogation agents, as well as peace officers and federal agents trained and experienced in interrogation methods. The almost universally agree that the threat and action of physical injury (e.g. torture) is at best unreliable, and generally delivers only the result that the interrogator is biased to believe or pursue. On the other hand, treating the subject with unexpected courtesy (particularly one who has been conditioned to believe only the worst kind of treatment under questioning) often results in a stream of unfiltered intelligence.

In any case, in the "ticking bomb" scenario, the subject is highly motivated to resist as long as necessary, as time is on his side. Once "the bomb" (or whatever) is complete, his intellgience is no longer worthwhile. The real art of interrogation is patience and indifference; the longer you wait, and the more uninterested you seem, the more likely the subject is to tell you something just to fill the void or demonstrate some kind of worth. This is true even of highly trained subjects. In the end, it isn't so much about being "broken" as just running out of lies to tell.

Stranger
  #17  
Old 01-23-2012, 06:13 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
. . . And that's another problem. The calm professional who only tortures when necessary to discover the truth? They do not exist. . . .
While I believe that there may be a very few exceptions, I certainly agree with this as a problem that needs to be addressed. There is no intrinsic check or balance to the abuse of power by a torturer. If he actually were a monster, and yet were cagey enough to keep this from being obvious, who would know?

If the soldiers abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib had been smart enough not to take pictures and share them with others (stupid bloody gits!) would the secret ever have become widely known? How many other situations are there which are not now publicly known?
  #18  
Old 01-25-2012, 06:29 PM
Ranchoth Ranchoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Brink
Posts: 11,366
Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.

Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?
Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.
  #19  
Old 01-25-2012, 06:53 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.
Has it occurred to you that a habit of torturing people is a likely reason for that nuke to be aimed at your people in the first place?

And you assume not only that the torture will work, but that it won't just make matters worse. Torture ruins subjects for genuine interrogation, and as already pointed out it is more likely to produce false "data" than anything real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."
Of course, in reality you probably won't be torturing someone who is guilty of anything, and you won't stop with just him. And you'll inflict major damage on your nations intelligence because people don't willingly talk to torturers, and most won't turn in someone they suspect of a crime if they think you'll torture him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.
Threatening or assaulting people's children is one of the tactics we like to use with "enhanced interrogation". It's to be expected; torturers are monsters, therefore they will do monstrous things like rape & torture children if they can get their hands on one.
  #20  
Old 01-25-2012, 07:02 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 14,959
Nah. Torture is unreliable. By the time scenario 1 & 2 come up, it's toolate. Th reick is not not make people want to do that shit in the first place. Maybe treat folks better as a matter of course or, alternatively, make the repurcussions so horrific that nobody will screw with you. The last method is a good answer to #3. Kill my people and I really won't have anything to hold me back.
  #21  
Old 01-25-2012, 07:10 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
All 3 scenarios, "I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away."

These scenarios aren't real and don't happen. But if they did, I wouldn't hesitate. Of course it would be part of a more complex good cop/bad cop setup, but I'd prefer to be the bad cop.

In each of these cases you present some kind of assurance that the suspect has actual information that could be revealed. But only an idiot says "I know where the bomb is and I won't tell you" because he is inviting torture. Now if you have nothing but suspicion, you can't use torture, because that would make you evil. But if I do know someone has information that would save lives and might be revealed by torture, I have no reason to hesitate.
  #22  
Old 01-26-2012, 12:03 AM
Ranchoth Ranchoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Brink
Posts: 11,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
And you assume not only that the torture will work, but that it won't just make matters worse. Torture ruins subjects for genuine interrogation, and as already pointed out it is more likely to produce false "data" than anything real.
For the record, I'll use whatever works, or has a chance of working, on the prisoner to get the information out of him. Whether that involves talking to him nicely, or pulling out his fingernails, or giving him a grasshopper, or strapping electromagnets to his skull so he sees the Slender Man coming for him, or cutting him a check. But the fact as it stands is, I've got a prisoner who apparently knows where a huge bomb is going to enter the country, which will kill huge amounts of people when it goes off, and he won't talk. Matters aren't getting much worse than that.


Quote:
Has it occurred to you that a habit of torturing people is a likely reason for that nuke to be aimed at your people in the first place?

[snip]

Of course, in reality you probably won't be torturing someone who is guilty of anything, and you won't stop with just him. And you'll inflict major damage on your nations intelligence because people don't willingly talk to torturers, and most won't turn in someone they suspect of a crime if they think you'll torture him.
Well hey, if we're making assumptions, we can make the OP scenario all sorts of things! Now he's a oligofascist, who IS guilty of something, but torture won't work—oh! Now he's a Jain ascetic, who doesn't know anything, but torture would work quickly and efficiently if he was!

And the OP specified that this was a question about torturing someone who's plotting the greatest single act of mass murder in history, not "would you torture a prisoner who knows where a ballbearing factory is" or something similarly non-friggin'-extenuating.

Yeah, and maybe it would damage the reputation and effectiveness of my intelligence agency and my public image if it got out that the prisoner got the fourth degree, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would in most circumstances, but I'd generally get the same blind eye turned towards this guy as the reprisal killings of SS death camp guards got. Maybe it would have bad effects, but they'd be less-bad in the long run than a successful nuclear terrorist attack and it's aftermath. Or maybe it WOULD have bad socio-political-military consequences—if the prisoner, once he'd been wrung dry, hadn't simply...disappeared. No official records, and certainly no public confirmation that he'd ever even been captured. Just whispers and ashes.
  #23  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:38 AM
Shade Shade is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cambridge. No, the UK one
Posts: 4,272
The hypothetical situation of a literal ticking bomb, and a suspect who admits they planted it and could tell you where it is, but refuses to do so, is fairly extreme. It's like saying "if civilisation collapses, would you steal food from someone else's children to feed your children?" Many people would. Some people would refuse. Almost everyone doesn't know how they would actually react until they're in that situation.

The point of civilisation is to try to AVOID getting into those situations where you have to chose between bad thing A and bad thing B.

The problem with torture isn't that in the hypothetical situation that everything shown in 24 actually happens, it's definitely wrong.

The problem is that massively, massively often, people will claim ticking-bomb level urgency when it's not there because they want to think they're Jack Bauer, and will end up torturing someone completely innocent because they didn't have any due process. <b>Even talking about it on a message board is a very bad thing, because it makes it seem more 'normal' so it's more likely someone will think it's justified, even though it's not.</b>

In the specific ticking bomb scenario, where you're sure the guy is guilty, and it's easy to quickly check the answers he gives, it can work, but interrogators aren't usually incentivised to find TRUE answers, they're incentivised to find answers that GIVE MORE PRESTIGIOUS WORK FOR INTERROGATORS, and torture works equally well for both.
  #24  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:09 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,090
It doesn't matter if torture works or not. Even if it did, it would be wrong to torture.

No, no and no.
  #25  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:35 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,418
I have long maintained there has never been a real scenario where a ticking bomb (or something of that ilk) was found by torture. I have further said, with less certainty, that I cannot think of a case where a prisoner had such very important time-sensitive information and the captor knew he had it.

I am willing tobe educated.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017