And why does the citizenship of the person tortured make any difference, if I may ask?
I don’t see anything wrong with US laws giving US citizens more protection than non-citizens. Note that I didn’t say ONLY non-citizens would be subject to torture.
OK, here’s a scenario to think about.
-
You have someone in custody, some children are missing and presumably will die of exposure if not found ASAP.
-
You torture this guy for days and days, yet he never tells you where the kids are.
-
A week later, they catch the guy who actually kidnapped the children because he gets pulled over for speeding.
-
The tortured innocent suffers a complete mental breakdown, having had his life and body ruined, and commits suicide.
-
We all experience warm feelings about American justice. Or perhaps, having witnessed this well-oiled machine in operation, we all just pissed our pants.
-fh
And I see something extremely wrong with a country’s laws not protecting anybody from the most blatant attacks against the most basic human rights.
The day when the US will officially allow torture for foreign citizens will be the day when it will remove itself from the list of civilized nations.
So let’s assume that the state only provides the minimum necessary protection to it’s own citizens (which I think is a fair and reasonable assumption). Are you suggesting that non-citizens be ‘entitled’ to less-than-adequate (by definition) protections?
Sorry, I wish to live in a society that, at least in principle, treats everybody with the same level of respect.
:rolleyes:
Yes. You will make stuff up. You will also absolutely tell everything you know.
In Recon Marine training they will tell you that “torture is innefective” is a myth. Than, just in case you don’t understand, they prove it to you.
Scylla, there are countless instances of people who have confessed to crimes they did not commit. There are also countless instances of people who did not confess or reveal information, among them many Americans prisoners in Vietnam. History shows countless people who were tortured and died for their beliefs who could have easily avoided it by renouncing them.
What you get with torture has little to do with the truth and much to do with the victim of the torture. If the person is of average weakness you get a confession even if the person is innocent. If the person is strong you get nothing and the person is labeled a hero if he is on your side or a fanatic if he is an enemy.
The idea that we would torture Muslim fanatics is so repugnant to me that the day it starts is the day I consider Al Qaeda had a point. The only reason Al Qaeda is wrong is that we do not resort to such barbaric actions. Once we sink to their level we are the same as them.
**
True. In the case of Vietnam servicemen, the fact is that the torture was nondirected. The Vietcong were for the most part on a fishing expedition, and a lot of it was torture for the sake of torture.
There really is no escape from focussed and directed torture applied with intelligence, especially if you are seeking a specific piece of information that you know your party posesses. It simply cannot be resisted.
[quote]
What you get with torture has little to do with the truth and much to do with the victim of the torture. If the person is of average weakness you get a confession even if the person is innocent. If the person is strong you get nothing and the person is labeled a hero if he is on your side or a fanatic if he is
Exactly wrong. What you get depends on the skill of the torturer, as well as what information the torturer has before he begins.
This is really not an issue for debate, it’s a fact. Duress works very well in extracting specific information. A question like “where did you hide the bomb?” Can’t be resisted.
Generalized torture can, for a period of time.
This is really not in dispute. Ask any member of the Special Forces who has gone to interrogation school (and that is mild torture.)
Ask the Israelis who have used torture quite effectively as a means to extracting specific information.
I am not arguing with your moral judgements. The fact is though that torturing works as a means of eliciting specific information that you know the party posessing it has.
The more generalized the information you are seeking, the less effective.
For example, if you have a padlock that only you know the combination to, and you are tortured for that combination, you will give it out very quickly, no matter how important it is to you, and no matter how much you don’t want to.
The reason is because
- They are looking for a known piece of specific information.
- What you say is immediately testable.
>> I am not arguing with your moral judgements.
I am glad to know that we agree on that
>> The fact is though that torturing works as a means of eliciting specific information that you know the party posessing it has.
In some cases, not always. And often the torturer is assuming the information is known when in fact it is not.
>> The more generalized the information you are seeking, the less effective.
So what do you do with the guys in the OP who may or may not know where the woman is now? They may have killed her or they may have freed her and she has disappeared for other reasons. When would we have enough justification to torture?
>> For example, if you have a padlock that only you know the combination to, and you are tortured for that combination, you will give it out very quickly, no matter how important it is to you, and no matter how much you don’t want to.
>> The reason is because
>>1. They are looking for a known piece of specific information.
>> 2. What you say is immediately testable.
I disagree. People have been tortured to death and not revealed information. People have been tortured to death for refusing to say certain words like “I renounce my faith” which do not need to be tested in any way. Some people will break down and some will not.
I remember some story about some guy in Argentina in the 70s who confessed to belonging to some communist organization and then leading the police to all sorts of places where they found nothing. The guy was no communist and the explanation he gave later was that when he confessed the torture stopped. When he gave information, even if false, the torture stopped. He did what he could to make the torture stop.
Historically torture has been shown to be not very efficient in finding the truth. People have confessed to crimes they did not commit, even to having sex with the devil and things like that.
I remember reading a book titled “The Crime of Cuenca” ( a city in Spain). In the 1920’s a man disappeared and two men were accused of murdering him. After some time in jail and some torture they confessed to the crime even explaining how they did it etc. The body was never found and there was some explanation to that too. The two confessed and convicted criminals went to prison where they remained for many years. Until one day the “dead” man returned to the village. It turns out he had just left and never knew his disappearance had caused what it did. The Crime to which the title refers to is, of course, the huge crime committed by the State and by the police.
Torture a suspected terrorist and you will probably get a lot of terrorist plans. Whether they are true or made up is anybody’s guess. They will not be immediately testable and may not be ever testable. Or maybe the guy will be strong enough too endure the torture saying Allah is great.
I do not think torture is 100% effective at all although it, obviously, will work in many cases.
In any case, a mark of a civilised society is that the end does not justify the means. Those who say the ends justify the means are making justifications for terrorists. They have their ends and, in their eyes, the means are justified.
Torture is a bad idea.
While I am sure that a special case could be construed to make us violate any of our basic principles, I also realize that this is why remaining principled is such a challenge.
It’s bad, dont mess with it.
A forced confession is exactly the sort of thing our justice system was developed to protect against.
sailor:
You refer of course to the Inquisition. We’re going to get into a little more depth than we may need to here. Drawing and quartering someone is torture that kills. The rack kills. Many things kill or maim without producing ubearable pain. Than too, there is a threshhold when the damage to a body is so severe and death is a foregone conclusion that torture no longer works.
It really didn’t matter too much to the Inquisitors whether they acuired a confession or not. For the most part the torture had death as its goal, their reason for inflicting pain in the process was really simple sadism under the guise of eliciting a confession, thus saving a soul.
It’s really not comparable to torture with the specific goal of eliciting information.
And, I’m also not speaking towards the torture of an innocent resulting in false confessions.
Given my hypothetical situation of a combination lock whose combination is known to the torturee, and the torturer knows he’s going to have it, the torturer will have that combination in very short order every time given the barest modicum of competance.
I’m not going to go into techniques here, but they work every time. There really is no way to resist.
What can be resisted to a degree is generalized torture. That’s where your torturer thinks you know something important but isn’t sure and has only a vague notion as to what it is he’s after. Supposedly the best way to resist this is to try to say as little as possible and give as little information as possible. The worst thing you can do is start talking, even if it’s to lie. Even if it’s just a simple lie, that can be all they need to pry the rest out of you.
The success of this kind of torture is going to be very variable.
There are certain risks associated with being civilized. I assume that another mans toenails will not be ripped off in order to save my life. I might do such a thing myself, if it would save my life, perhaps. But I would not expect another person to degrade themselves thus on my behalf.
Would I be willing to condone torture to save the life of my child. Of course, I would be willing to committ murder, without a moments hesitation. I also recognize that that would be a crime, and properly punishable. Extenuating circumstances, mayhap, but a crime nonetheless.
If wearing the white hat was easy, it would be more common.
I think clair nailed it. If torture is really justified in some particular instance, it would have to be justified enough that the torturer is willing to risk his career and/or freedom to have the information. If I had to torture a terrorist to find a nuclear bomb to save a million people, I would do it even if I knew I would go to jail for assault and human rights violations. It would be worth it to me. If I’m not willing to sacrifice my career for the information, then it almost certainly isn’t important enough to torture someone for.
(slight hi-jack)
I would like to address torture in general… Forget the death penalty, Bring Back Torture! The reason so many go back to a criminal lifestyle is because we treat them in prison instead of punish them and they don’t see going back to prison as such a bad thing… If the government would torture people for felonies then the felon would still leave with their life and is pretty sure they don’t ever want to go back. (just my opinion)
Orbytal, it is said that roomate Bubba is torture enough.
Human beings are fallible, and if torture were legal, there would be many instances where (for instance, if they torture someone who turns out to be innocent) where it would be a uselessly applied evil.
OTOH, people that say “hey, torture is illegal, but when we REALLY need it, someone will risk their career to do it”, underestimate many people’s natural fear. Sure, someone would do it to save a city from nuclear holocaust (probably), but to save the life of one person you dont know, would you risk your career? Perhaps once, but I would imagine that pretty soon, either you would be too scared to risk your career on a regular basis, or you would have already been weeded out as a “loose cannon”
C’mon, there have been plenty of instances where bureaucrats have had the chance to avoid evildoing if they would just act, even in this country, but didnt, out of the desire to avoid career damage.
So, basically, I dont know what the solution is.
Ludovic, I guess that I feel that there are only very very very very limited times when torture might be justified. Torture, even justified torture, is brutal and dehumanizing to both the perpetrator and victim. I don’t want to live in a society that condones torture.
Exactly how often do you think torture would be useful to save lives? The only time it might be justified is if the information that is needed to save lives must be gotten in a certain amount of time. Exactly how quickly could the cops get a warrant to torture a suspect? Exactly how often do you think judges would issue such a warrant? Exactly how often would it actually work?
Imagine that on 9/11 the cops were authorized to use torture to gather information. Would that have saved any lives? No. I imagine that 99.999% of cops could go through their entire careers and never encounter a circumstance where the use of torture would be justifiable. Empowering cops to torture the citizenry would make the cops jobs harder, not easier.
Hey, why not legalize perjury under some circumstances? After all, there are cases where telling the truth in court would let a guilty person free. Maybe we should allow the cops to legally manufacture evidence against people they know are guilty. Think of all the time, money, and effort we could save…
Ludovic, about the possibility of torturing someone who was innocent… there is just as much a chance in giving someone the death penalty who was innocent… the difference is at least if they were tortured they would still be alive…
Human beings are fallible, and if torture were legal, there would be many instances where (for instance, if they torture someone who turns out to be innocent) where it would be a uselessly applied evil.
Same thing with the death penalty (which i’m sure you’re against). Same thing with prison. Same thing with punitive community service.
True enough, but you can release a man falsely imprisoned, as well as punitive community service. If you can raise the dead, please advise us at once.