| If there was a time-bomb and police had a suspect who they knew could tell them where it was... |
|
If there was a time-bomb and police had a suspect who they knew could tell them where it was...
Click to vote
|
|
||||
United States
bring on the electric nipple clamps.
Amen!
Whatever Jack-Bauer tells me about the time-bomb
If you somehow *knew* without any doubt at all that the person in question could tell you what you needed to know that's one thing. What makes this issue hard is that there's often no way to know if there really is a bomb, or if this person really knows anything at all.
That's why the justice system is supposed to be careful about assumptions... we don't have "assumed innocent unless well... they seem pretty guilty" :)
Good point. This is the harder question in my book.
We are innocent until proven guilty (in the US anyways)... but I do not advocate the use of coerision as a means of obtaining evidence... any evidence obtained would have to be supressed from any judicial proceedings by the fruit of the poisonous tree that is coersion. (Every confession must be freely made).
I do think that the public's interest in saving the lives of millions of innocents merits such coersion.
So I would not say the coersion should be used as a form of punishment (clearly that is not permissible ever) nor as a means of obtaining evidence for judicial proceedings. But, it may be acceptable if you accept the utilitarian argument that the interest of preserving millions outwheighs the very small harm (comparitively) that would result from the use of some coercive tactics.
Lukewake loves torture, much like Saddam and Hitler by the way.
Pepelapiu, that is absurd - its a baseless and ridiculous ill-spirited suggestion!
First of all, you dont know my actual opinion on this matter. Im a lawyer (well, soon to be), Ill argue either side of an issue. I dont think its ever acceptable to make such distasteful slurs. Do you have a problem with people having a civilized discussion on an important matter?
I pose the question because its not an easy question and something that we may have to consider. The Isreali Supreme Court has already sort of been faced with this issue. It could happen in the U.S., it could happen in London, it could happen in Munich.
Personally, I do believe that in the interest of saving the lives of a million people against a barbaric agressor who is threatening innocent men, women and children, it is acceptable to utilize some forms coersive tactics.
I see it as a matter of third-party defense (which is acceptable - you cant dispute this point). (Well you could... but its accepted, even among theologians, that it is acceptable to wage war or otherwise defend the innocent in a matter of third party defense).
And Peplapiu, I am not advocating toture as a means of terror or repression. Infact I think there absolutely must be safe gaurds to prevent torture from being used outside of the very narrow "ticking-time bomb" scenario. Moreover, I do not support the cruel forms of torture utilized by the Nazis, Saddam or the Spanish Inquisition. I advocate coercive tactics... such as sleep deprivation, waterboarding and so forth... These tactics are much more humane than ripping someones limbs off or causing them severe bodily harm.
I ask that Pepelapiu consider continuing this dialouge in a civilized manner. I am aghast that anyone could make such a terrible and unjustified slur.
>> These tactics are much more humane
>> than ripping someones limbs off or
>> causing them severe bodily harm.
Don't try to sugar coat it. Torture is torture, be it physical torture or psychological torture .... it's all torture all the same. And your attempts to hide the word torture behind "cohesive tactics" is transparent to your actual agenda. I think "coercive tactics" and whatever else you view as no torture should be tested on people like you before trying it on any enemies.
It makes me fucking sick that ANYONE in this country is willing to argue FOR torture or any form. Those who try to promote torture as "coercive tactics" and "effective means to the end" make me sick to my stomach. Your attempts to justify torture are laughable. But anyway, look at this and let me know what you think:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
>> I ask that Pepelapiu consider
>> continuing this dialouge in a
>> civilized manner.
FUCK YOU!!! Anyone promoting torture should have their balls hooked on to a car battery to try on for size...... then you can come back to me and tell me all about the great benefits of torture.
It you want an intelligent discussion about torture, go talk to Hitler or the Chinese government. This discussion has NO PLACE in the USA.
Better yet, move to Darfur, you'll find a lot of "intelligent" torture dialogue there.
You do not warrant rebuttal because you have said nothing of substance. Your just speaking with emotions.
Im sorry you dont believe in free and open discourse. This discussion is what makes america beautiful, because we have political freedoms to have differences of opinions expressed. And its completely bogus that you are comparing me to such people. You dont hear me calling you Stalin. (Although he might have gone along with your no free speech idea).
>> Your just speaking with emotions.
Damn right I am speaking with emotions. It makes me sick that ANY of my countrymen would even remotely entertain the idea that torture would me acceptable in any shape or form. It makes me sick that the media engages in this form of debate.
>> Im sorry you dont believe in free
>> and open discourse.
I do believe in open discourse, I have the right to free speech and so do you, but your right to not get offended does not exist. I believe in free speech while you believe in torture ....... that's what makes me sick to no end.
>> And its completely bogus that you
>> are comparing me to such people.
Why not? They love torture and apparently so do you...... sorry, you don't believe in torture, you believe in "coercive methods" ...... as long as anyone in this country advocates torture I can assure you I'll be getting trashy.
>> You dont hear me calling you
>> Stalin.
Stalin liked torture and so do you .... why bring me into it? That's your click, not mine. Maybe you think that if you wrap your torture in an American flag then it's all good?
>> (Although he might have gone along
>> with your no free speech idea).
Again, I didn't stop you from speaking and you can't stop me from insulting the hell out of anyone who tries to promote torture as any sort of an acceptable means to the end.
I mean seriously, think about it, this is torture you are advocating, not women's rights, not gay rights, not tax laws .... YOU ARE ADVOCATING TORTURE ...... and I advocate repeatedly insulting anyone who believes in torture ..... who's the better guy?
I think your ridiculous.You sound so mad you could blow me up. I am not advocating torture as a means of oppression and repression as did Hitler and Stalin and Saddam...
Im glad your excersing your right to be offended. Im done with this conversation.
>> And Peplapiu, I am not advocating
>> toture as a means of terror or
>> repression.
That is correct, you are advocating torture as an "effective intel gathering method" but you are advocating torture all the same. In your warped mind WE can do torture because WE are the good guys and WE would do it properly and safely...... unlike them, the bad guys. That's fucking sick buddy, propaganda at it's best to promote torture. You and your bushies in office are no better then those you claim to defend our country against.
Im only arguing that it may be acceptable in the event it would save many many lives. But perhaps if you don not value the human life as I do then my utilitarian argument will not make sense to you. Im not labeling anyone as good or bad... but I am labeling actions as good and bad. Not saying torture is good. I am saying that the evil of torture is must less than the evil of terrorist plots which would kill innocent civilians. The good to be gained by saving innocent lives outwheighs its evil in this little instance. No, i dont think torture is acceptable as a means of gathering information except in order to prevent such an attack. I think if it would save your loved ones, you would agree with me.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
If you really dont like freedom of speech and free discourse, then perhaps you should consider moving to China. I am personally proud to live in a land where freedoms are protected. And as much as I disagree with you, I think you are entitled to your opinions.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Pepelapiu - this isn't the place for personal attacks. Thanks.
>> this isn't the place for personal
>> attacks.
What a great country we live in!! We can talk about torture and it's benefits but we can't trash people who promote it ...... that's just brilliant!!!
Again, go to Darfur or Iraq or the 12th century, you'll fit right in for "intelligent" discussions about torture.
I want to pick up a gun and shoot the TV whenever the media tried to tell us that waterboarding isn't really torture and that torture isn't really torture but it is rather "coercive methods" . What has this country come to that we can even remotely entertain the notion that torture could be acceptable?
Don't you remember what we did to Saddam because he tortured people? He didn't use "coercive methods", he tortured people..... think about it!!!
How could you believe what you were told under torture? Those who have experienced torture might be better judges of its effectiveness at arriving at the truth than those of us who are sitting comfortably at home thinking "logically". John McCain, as one of many, says that torture is ineffective at learning the truth and should never be used. I put more weight on his opinion than any of us who think about torture in the abstract.
Yes, Evidently John McCain was asked to tell his captors the names of the soldiers on his airplane... he told them the names of football players from the Green Bay Packers.
Yes, surely this is a good point and this is why evidence procured through torture can never reasonably used to prosecute.
But... it is also true that it can be effective in bringing out the truth. You cannot make a blanket statement that it never works. Yes they could be lying, but they could also be telling the truth. Even if there is only a 20% chance that they are telling the truth, thats a 20% chance that we wouldnt have otherwise had to deter an attack.
The fact of the matter is, people will say anything to get torture to end. Some of it will be false, some of it will be true. But, in the war on terror we have detered some very grave attacks through such methods (there was an arrest of terrorists in Germany just this last month which thwarted a bombing plan). And, some of the top Al Quada leaders (once captured) have given information which has been tremendously valuable in our fight on terror.
So, yes... you cannot rely on statements procured by torture under any degree of certainty, but I dont think that the possibility of deception is reason enough to say it would be pointless.
You state certain events reported by the Bush Administration as fact. I challenge your assertion that the WOT has deterred very grave attacks and torture of Al Qaeda leaders have given valuable information. There is no evidence to support this assertion.
You could doubt the Bush administration? JK
I know that they have led to the arrests of other Al Quada leaders and that they thwarted the attack in Germany this fall. Sorry, I dont have specific facts beyond that, but I still stand by my supsisition that you cannot make the blanket statement that tortutre is never effective in evoking truthful statements
Realistically there is no good answer to this question because given this scenario most people will want to rational and humane, but if it was a threat to their loved ones they would be whipping out the bamboo and hoses themselves in a heartbeat. I would hope that one day there is a humane way we could get the truth from somebody without having to subject anybody to torture. After all, what are we as a people if we allow our basest instincts rule use?
Torture is never ok.
yes, torture would be okay. Evolution has not come far enough to end torture and many other things like war.
missing 3rd answer: it would not be acceptable to torture the individual, especially since there is no way of knowing if the information obtained through said torture will be valid or actually save any lives.
Torture is never acceptable. There is no way of knowing that the information you get is true, and if the person honestly does not know anything, they are punished by continuous torture.
Even if the suspect knew the answer, how do you know that you received the correct information even after you tortured him? How do you know he just didn't tell you a lie to get you to stop torturing him?
Daever, you CAN NOT have a sensible discussion with anyone who promotes torture in any way, shape or form. But be careful, they will try very hard hide it behind the ridiculous idea of saving lives and the such. They won't call it torture either, they'll call it "coercive methods"
Add the answer "It would be okay to torture if it would save my life or the lives of my family"
there are few things worse than torture. Innocent people have been tortured, including women and children. Many people were tortured under Sadadam Hussein, for example.
Right but he tortured as a means of coercion or to intimidate. What we were asked here was would it be okay to torture a terrorist who "we knew could tell us where the bomb was", not some innocent child.