Does defense justify torture?

[ecofarm]

You'd let thousands of innocents die instead of torturing for the bomb location, when we are absolutely sure we have the criminal responsible?

That's wrong.



And I don't buy slippery slope arguments. They are akin to black/white thinking.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You'd let thousands of innocents die instead of torturing for the bomb location, when we are absolutely sure we have the criminal responsible?
That's wrong.

What if instead of focusing on torture in taht situation if we focused ongetting relevant information?

How often does this particular situation occur by the way?

 

[ecofarm]

I thought, for argument's sake, we agreed that no other means could be considered (given time, ability, resources or whatever).

Apparently, three times (for the US) since 9/11. I imagine it will be less when we are not actively chasing people who are trying desperately to slaughter a maximum number of innocents during the height of Al Q's organizational capacity.

 

[German guy]

You'd let thousands of innocents die instead of torturing for the bomb location, when we are absolutely sure we have the criminal responsible? That's wrong.

When is this ever a relevant scenario, except in Hollywood fictions and exaggerated TV shows à la "Twenty-Four"? It seems too many people can't distinguish between fiction and reality anymore.

And no, government must never have the power to torture mere suspects and get away with it. Do you think a mere accusation against you gives the government the right to arrest you and torture you, without any evidence or fair trial? Once this is official policy, it's inevitable many innocent people get caught in the wheels of the Leviathan and crushed by government.

When that means that there is less security, then I have to say this is the price of freedom. It would probably safer in terms of security too, if we abrogated trials in general and just executed all suspects. The one who did it will be among them, so killing all 10 suspects is the safest way to make sure he can't commit his crime again. Fascism is probably much safer than a free society. But safety and security is not all, isn't it?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I thought, for argument's sake, we agreed that no other means could be considered (given time, ability, resources or whatever).

Apparently, three times (for the US) since 9/11.

So, three times since 9-11 we got the location of a bomb?

 

[ecofarm]

When is this ever a relevant scenario, except in Hollywood fictions and exaggerated TV shows à la "Twenty-Four"? It seems too many people can't distinguish between fiction and reality anymore.

I'm distiguishing very clearly (and have done so many times) - the three times it has been used in reality by the US since 9/11.

So, three times since 9-11 we got the location of a bomb?

Basically, yes.

 

[German guy]

I'm distiguishing very clearly (and have done so many times) - the three times it has been used in reality by the US since 9/11.

Said who? The government? The same big government authoritarians that violate basic human rights by holding mere suspects indefinitely, denying them fair trials and a chance to defend themselves? Now that's a source we can trust.

And you didn't address the rest of my argument. I explained why I believe it would even be wrong to use torture if it improved security.

 

[ecofarm]

Ok, the big bad government lies about everything. 'Don't believe the goverment' and 'slippery slope'? You must be tired.

I did address that. It is morally wrong to allow thousands of innocents to die when you have a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt of immediate intended mass murder and can get info to stop the catastrophy. 1000 x right to life > 1 x right to not be tortured. At some point or circumstance, pretty much any right ends. That's just how it is.

ps. How can you espouse considerable social welfare or socialist policy and tell me 'don't believe the government'. Considering that your political opponents could win an election, what kind of policy is this?

 

[OscarB63]

Said who? The government? The same big government authoritarians that violate basic human rights by holding mere suspects indefinitely, denying them fair trials and a chance to defend themselves? Now that's a source we can trust.

this always gets me. yeah we are "technically" violating their "human rights" but have you ever been to the places these guys come from? have you seen the living conditions there? the detainees at GITMO have better food, better medical treatment, better housing etc than 90% of their fellow countrymen. The downside is that they are not free to come and go as they please, but then again...most of their fellow countrymen aren't either. They live better than most of the US troops living in Iraq and Afghanistan and have just as much freedom.

we are doing most of them a favor by keeping their ass detained because if they weren't, they'd have probably blown themself up by now.

 

[repeter]

Eco, how do you address the problems of torturing someone, ie them lying to escape the pain/discomfort. Wouldn't it be better to use other, more efficient methods to coerce a prisoner?

 

[German guy]

Ok, the big bad government lies about everything, nothing is true. Believe nothing - that's the best you got? 'Don't believe the goverment' and 'slippery slope'? You must be tired.

If the government is the source of your claim, you must be incredibly naive. Of course they will say torture worked, because they need to gather support for their fascist policies.

I did address that. It is morally wrong to allow thousands of innocents to die when you have a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt of immediate intended mass murder and can get info to stop the catastrophy. 1000 x right to life > 1 x right to not be tortured.

I am 100% sure that in 99.9% of the cases, when torture as official policy is employed, you do not have a situation where there is a "conviction beyond reasonable doubt about intended mass murder" and this scenario simply does not exist outside of fascist propaganda shows like "Twenty-Four". But assuming it is, and I am in such a situation to decide, because I am a security officer or such, I'd probably indeed apply torture because of my conscience. And I would take full responsibility for my illegal decision of employing torture and accept the consequences, as it should be. Yet I would never accept torture becoming legal or official policy, because it should be obvious that in most cases, such a policy would result in unlimited abuse.

Seriously, what's wrong with you Americans lately? Where has the respect for the most basic human right and legal standards gone? We're all proud to be better than people like Hitler, Stalin or Saddam, yet so many people seem to be just too eager to follow their examples by giving up even the most basic and fundamental moral standards that used to make us better.

 

[ecofarm]

Eco, how do you address the problems of torturing someone, ie them lying to escape the pain/discomfort. Wouldn't it be better to use other, more efficient methods to coerce a prisoner?

Seek only verifiable information that the subject is absolutely known to have and is worth thousands of lives, see previous posts. If they lie, it gets worse.

If you kill them, or worse, and the bomb goes off anyway... at least you tried to save all those people.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Stop occupying their country... seek alternative energy - no torture or death.

:kitty:

 

[German guy]

ps. How can you espouse considerable social welfare or socialist policy and tell me 'don't believe the government'. Considering that your political opponents could win an election, what kind of policy is this?

First, I do not "espouse considerable social welfare" and definitely not "socialist policy". I believe social safety nets and some redistribution are fine, but they must be limited.

In a free republic, there are things that can be decided by majority, but others can't. Basic civil and human rights, as well as basic legal standards, are sacrosanct and every majority decision violating them is illegitimate, and a country that systematically violates them, by making this violation official policy, ceases to be a free republic. An independent judicary, the right on fair trials, on legal defense, and proper protection of the rights of suspects, who have to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial, and a ban on barbaric debasing practizes such as torture, are such basic human right and legal standards. Keeping poor people from dying of curable diseases by using public money to support them hardly is.

 

[ecofarm]

Basic civil (and perhaps even human) rights end in the US and every nation on earth all the time. It's called prison. Prison violates human rights. Having knowledge to stop the murder of 1000s should also allow the violation of human rights.

Three internationally known mass murderers were waterboarded and thousands of lives were saved. Don't throw honest intellectualism away to stand on some black/white absolutist moral ground.

@SE102: One hello kitty cartoon spammer is enough. Let's not encourage it.

 

[repeter]

Seek only verifiable information that the subject is absolutely known to have and is worth thousands of lives, see previous posts. If they lie, it gets worse.

If you kill them, or worse, and the bomb goes off anyway... at least you tried to save all those people.

So as a worst case scenario, you would be fine if we resort to torture? Or would you want to use torture right of the bat?

 

[German guy]

Basic civil (and perhaps even human) rights end in the US and every nation on earth all the time. It's called prison. Prison violates basic human rights. Having knowledge to stop the murder of 1000s should also allow the violation of human rights.

My problem is not so much what happens with convicted criminals. The problem is, we are not talking about people who have been convicted in a fair trial. We are talking about suspects. And as things are, some suspects are guilty, but others are innocent.

And, of course, even criminal prisoners enjoy rights that must be protected. The only justification for limiting some of their freedoms is to protect the rights of others.

Three internationally known mass murderers were waterboarded and thousands of lives were saved. Don't throw honest intellectualism away to stand on some black/white absolutist moral ground - m'kay?

So the ends justify the means? Just because something works, it's right? In that case, as I said, doing away with trials in general, and just shooting all suspects of any crime by default, would be fine as well.

 

[ecofarm]

So as a worst case scenario, you would be fine if we resort to torture? Or would you want to use torture right of the bat?

Maybe not for minor traffic violation suspicions, but for any criminal suspicion an immediate taser (to get started) seems reasonable. Do try to keep up with context.

My problem is not so much what happens with convicted criminals. The problem is, we are not talking about people who have been convicted in a fair trial. We are talking about suspects. And as things are, some suspects are guilty, but others are innocent.

No, we're talking about three internationally known mass murderers who were captured with the bomb location.

So the ends justify the means? Just because something works, it's right? In that case, as I said, doing away with trials and general, and just shooting all suspects of any crime by default, would be fine as well.

Look, just because you slippery sloped and CT'd is no reason to go accusing me of silly things. It works; it should not be used except in the most extreme conditions, after multiple absolute convictions and for the 'location of the bomb' (so to speak).

 

[German guy]

No, we're talking about three internationally known mass murderers who were captured with the bomb location.

Look, just because you slippery sloped and CT'd is no reason to go accusing my of silly things. It works; it should not be used except in the most extreme conditions, after multipe absolute convictions and for the 'location of the bomb' (so to speak).

Ok, if that's what you are saying, maybe I misunderstood you. As I said, if I was in the position to decide to employ torture, and I personally am convinced this would help saving the lives of thousands of people, I'd probably do it too. But I still don't believe torture should ever become official policy, or be legal. Simply because there is way too much room for abuse and error. Even if that means I will have to face consequences for breaking the law, in that hypothetical example.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Look :roll: are the CIA going to release a memo in public eyes that says torture is not working.

 

[ecofarm]

In that hypothetical example, chasing after indictments for the underlings who were given specific authority for that specific procedure would certainly be in poor taste.

 

[Fiddytree]

They could. They have had well-known disputes with other departments of the executive branch and intelligence agencies.

 

[cpwill]

If torture were proven to be an effective means of getting information, maybe, but since in most instances, the individual being tortured will tell you anything to make you stop, whether it's true or not, torture really isn't that useful to begin with.

the problem with this counterclaim is that you aren't going to interrogate someone who is high enough up the food chain to justify any kind of enhanced interrogation (to say nothing of torture) without having very specific information requirements built upon known unknowns. the question will never be something along the lines of "are you a bad guy", but more along the lines of "what is the phone number that you call to get in touch with Abu Saldi?" the answers to those information requirements are generally extremely verifiable (ie: we call the number and see who picks up: if it's a grandmother in Topeka, we can go back and discuss the implications of lying to the interrogator with the interrogated). Furthermore, anyone who has ever conducted interrogations professionally will tell you that any period of questioning is going to contain control questions, which will instantly indicate if the subject is falsifying his information. furthermore, the kinds of people that we have conducting high-level detainee questioning are extremely highly trained and proficient in the 16 interrogation approaches as well deception detection. trying to lie to one of these guys is like trying to lie to a Jedi Knight, your tells are instantly available to them. I played poker with a guy in this job field. once.

 

[ecofarm]

Look :roll: are the CIA going to release a memo in public eyes that says torture is not working.

If there is evidence of torture and no evidence of success, I don't see how they have a choice.

About how much failed torture would you say the US is guilty of?

 

[pbrauer]

Torture doesn't make people tell the truth, it make people say whatever the torturer wants them to say. Period.