Do you support an int'l rule that torturing the enemy is OK if it might save lives? (1 Viewer)

[Iriemon]

My apologizes for starting a thread similar to an existing one, but I wondered if the responses would be the same if the question was posed a little differently.

NP's thread asked if torture is OK if the info would stop another terrorist attack. A little unreaslitic, IMO, because whether torture will actually prevent another terrorist attack is something that you can't know until the torture is actually done, and two things occur: 1) the person being tortured actually does have information that would prevent another terrorist attack, and 2) the person who is tortured talks and tells the truth.

So this thread poses the question a little differently: Should there be an international rule that torturing the enemy is OK if it might save lives?

Curious as to whether the responses would be the same.

 

[Saboteur]

My apologizes for starting a thread similar to an existing one, but I wondered if the responses would be the same if the question was posed a little differently.

NP's thread asked if torture is OK if the info would stop another terrorist attack. A little unreaslitic, IMO, because whether torture will actually prevent another terrorist attack is something that you can't know until the torture is actually done, and two things occur: 1) the person being tortured actually does have information that would prevent another terrorist attack, and 2) the person who is tortured talks and tells the truth.

So this thread poses the question a little differently: Should there be an international rule that torturing the enemy is OK if it might save lives?

Curious as to whether the responses would be the same.

The answer is no and here's why.

If I strapped a man down and sqeezed his left testicle with a plyers, and told him that the pain would stop if he just told me how many people he killed. He'd start by telling me he hadn't killed anybody. So I start squeezing more saying I don't believe him.... He might hold out with zero for a while but eventually I could get him to admit to any number of murders.

 

[Iriemon]

As of 9-11: The results are a lot different from NP's poll on terrorism, showing that the responses will differ depending upon how the question is posed.

2 folks thought torture should be allowed as a general rule. I'd be interested to hear why.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

By international, are you talking nations or any ahkbar that comes down the street with an AK and a hostage?

As a rule no I don't think torture should be used. But the exception is there are going to be occasions where it might save lives. But it would be a tool thta would have to be used selectively to be effective.

 

[Iriemon]

By international, are you talking nations or any ahkbar that comes down the street with an AK and a hostage?

As a rule no I don't think torture should be used. But the exception is there are going to be occasions where it might save lives. But it would be a tool thta would have to be used selectively to be effective.

I see your logic, but that exception would swallow the rule, because in every instance torture could be justified because it might save lives.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I see your logic, but that exception would swallow the rule, because in every instance torture could be justified because it might save lives.

And I think your generalizing a lot. Yes you could say that. but the truth is some guy fighting on the battle field has no real intel, but the general in command does. I can maybe see the exception when you capture a guy known for hatching terrorist plots througout the world, as opposed to some guy hiding behind a camel firing his AK because thats what he was told to do