I’m completely against the use of torture for pretty much all of the reasons provided in this thread, so far.
The problem is that the circumstances in which torture is used (and intended to be used) are never this straightforward in reality. To be more realistic, the above situation would probably have the following additional parameters:
Someone set up a gun hidden somewhere in the room, that is configured to fire at you and your family.
Someone (?) tells you that this other guy in the room was responsible for placing this gun.
This someone also tells you that this other guy has a remote with which he can fire the gun.
So, based on this information, would you shoot the guy before he can press the button on his remote? How do you know he actually has such a remote? How do you know your source is even providing legitimate information?
Suppose you shoot him, and this “remote gun” never fires at your family. Is it because the guy with the remote is dead? Or is it because the guy with the remote was innocent? How much safer is your family , with all these unknowns still at large?
LilShieste
For those who are arguing that state cautioned torture may be acceptable - how do you feel about the infrastructure that implies ? Designated torturers, torture schools, presumably including case studies and live practice. Manufacturers of torture equipment, collecting data on results in order to design more effective torture devices and methodologies. Or were you maybe thinking it should be done spontaneously and incompetently ?
And what about the people who do the torturing ? Is it ok for them to date your daughter ? Coach little league baseball ?
How many on SDMB who say ‘sometimes’ have been in a position that requires the choice.
All of the hypotheticals that I have seen justifying torture are constructed so that there is only one possible answer. None of them seem real to me. How many times do we know for certain that the person who is to be tortured knows the answers the the questions we are going to ask?
Right. Now, while I am thinking rationally about the question, I say I would never advocate torture (note: I, and others, have mostly been arguing advocacy, not carrying out the act itself). At some future time, based on a highly emotional reaction to something or other, I might advocate, or even carry out, torture. Which would you say is the more correct course?
I note as well that no one so far who has advocated torture in special circumstances, whatever those may be, has addressed the problem of the torture of innocents. Once again, if state-sponsored torture is allowed under any circumstances, it is pretty much inevitable that innocents will be tortured. Surely some compensation for their pain is justified, right? If we agree on that, what form should it take?
And how do torture advocates feel about being the unlucky innocent who gets tortured ? There’s a strong overlap between the “torture is OK” and “You don’t need to worry about the authorities if you’re innocent” crowds, I’ve noticed.
Every American captured in the middle east should be tortured at great length for no purpose. And the videos circulated throughout the USA, played at Times Square and so forth. So then the US can look their image in the eye and state “This is who we are”.
Let me ask you the same question: do you believe it is moral to torture someone to save one life? How many lives must be at stake before you think torture is acceptable?
Furthermore, if one’s primary concern is to save lives, do you believe torture is justified against criminals who are not affiliated with a terrorist organization? If not, why not? Do you think we ought to amend the Fifth Amendment to write some loopholes into the protection against the state punishing people who have not been found guilty of a crime?
That is absolute nonsense. What, are you informed by experience here? Have you had to inflict excruciating pain in order to save your wife?
There are monks now being slain by the hundreds and perhaps thousands in Myanmar. Most people would probably think that it would be justified to use deadly force against the soldiers who are carrying out the will of a brutal dictatorship, and yet these victims have taken a moral stand against violence. What’s more, they are paying with their lives for holding to their moral code during in extremis events. I think most of the people who reject torture take a similar moral stand: they’d rather be a victim than let “circumstances” turn them into a monster. I was not responsible for running the government of Cambodia in the 1970s, but just because I wasn’t, doesn’t mean that I’d act like Pol Pot and commit genocide. Yes, I’ve never been responsible for a ticking time bomb situation, but that doesn’t mean if I were in that circumstance I’d make a choice to be like Uday Hussein. Bad people do evil things like kill people, but torturing people because of mere suspicion is partaking in evil, too. I will not be a part of it.
In my view, if someone is willing to do such an evil thing as attempt to dominate another by inflicting violence against a person who is incapable of defending themselves, then that person should be grown up enough to acknowledge their wrong and pay the consequences that laws would provide.
I dispute the belief some people have that torture doesn’t work. I think most of the people saying this are just trying to avoid the real ethical question being raised by trying to pretend there’s no issue here. It’s easy to say you’re opposed to something if it doesn’t work. It’s requires some actual thinking to decide if something that does work is worth the cost.
Torture works. It makes people talk. Obviously the majority of torture victims are going to try to lie to their torturers. But there are easy methods to seperate truth from lies as long as you can force a person to keep talking. I don’t torture people but I do interrogate them as part of my job. I know ways to catch people out when they try to lie to me.
On the issue of “known terrorists” there’s no such thing. The only way somebody would be a known terrorist is if we had perfect knowledge of all things - and if we had that, we’d already know all about their plans so we wouldn’t need to question or torture anyone. The only place known terrorists are tortured is in books, TV shows, and movies.
In the real world, what we’re actually talking about are possible terrorists. Would you be willing to torture a person who’s 99% likely to be a terrorist? How about a person who’s 1% likely to be a terrorist? 50%? 90%? 10%? Where do you want to draw the line.
How about somebody who’s not a terrorist? Would you torture somebody who’s probably not actually part of a terrorist plot but probably knows about their plans? Would you torture a family member of a likely terrorist in order to make him talk? To use the worst-case scenario, suppose a terrorist has hidden a nuclear bomb in New York City and it’s going to detonate in one hour and kill ten million people. You know that the terrorist is tough and will probably be able to hold out for over a hour against any torture you can do. But he loves his wife and would quickly break if you tortured her. Would you torture one woman to save ten million people?
It’s ironic that this argument was made by some people as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam’s regime was undeniably torturing people and some people said we should invade to bring Saddam to justice.
Not true. We KNOW Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Back in the day we KNEW Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (Carlos the Jackal) was a terrorist. Indeed these people make no bones about it although they may call themselves freedom fighters or something. That did not mean we knew a thing about what there next plan of action was.
So we should only torture people who admit to being terrorists, and spare the rest? I think that may cause some real terrorists to lie and say they aren’t terrorists. Then, since we wouldn’t necessarily believe them, we’d have to beat them in order to find out if they’re terrorists or not.
Remind me again: were the real witches the ones who sank, or the ones who floated? I can never remember.
C’mon. I doubt Osama would say he was a terrorist and would call himself a freedom fighter or something flowery like that.
Nonetheless he admitted to dropping the World Trade Center and other attacks on the US. And no one had dropped him in a pool to see if he floated or not to get that admission.
Phlospher, by definition, there is no such thing as “mild torture.” That sounds like doublespeak.
And I suspect that most people who think that they could torture someone else have not suffered to the point of wishing for the release of death.
I agree with Der Trihs that death can become the more welcome option.
If you never learn anything else from me here, please hear me on this:
I’ve had physical pain that was bad enough to make me want to die. The only thing that kept me going was knowing that I was going to get better. But I have also had my emotional equilibrium screwed up because I was given the wrong medication. I could barely walk. I had trouble putting words together to speak and explain myself. I could not sit still. I could not lie down and be still. My mind thought that I was going to literally explode all over the room at any second. (This was at a hospital while I waited in a room alone to see a doctor.)
All of this continued for hours. What I endured that day was the post painful experience that I have ever had. Please don’t ever speak of emotional equilibrium as being something that is relatively less supceptible to torture. It is all part of your physical self.
I admire your stand and believe in it myself. But I’ve never had the nerve to stop paying a portion of my federal income taxes – the portion that goes to the Department of Defense.
We only have one realistic way to try and end torture, and that’s not by not paying our taxes and going to jail.
The only realistic way that we can try to force our government to stop torturing people is to TALK about it, like we are doing now. Talk, vote, talk, vote, talk, vote. There is nothing else, which sucks, but you can’t call people out and accuse them of supporting torture just because they’re still paying their taxes.
However, another incredibly important and fundamental question is, “Is torture the best method for obtaining the info?”
Educing Information http://www.dia.mil/college/3866.pdf
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation
Review: Observations of an Interrogator
… historic trends that show the majority of sources (some estimates range as high as 90 percent) have provided meaningful answers to pertinent questions in response to direct questioning (i.e., questions posed in an essentially administrative manner rather than in concert with an orchestrated approach designed to weaken the source’s resistance).
Torture is a terrible thing. Terrorism is a terrible thing. War is a terrible thing. Which one of these is more terrible than the others is something that rational people have to think about and decide on a case-by-case basis.