- Banned
- #1
That is the question, can we justify torture if it stops a massive terrorist attack and saved hundreds or even thousands of lives. Great show on now on ABC called In Our Name, what do you guys think?
The Law Can torture be justified?
- Thread starter Alpha1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Paddywhackers
Cancelled
Yes... yes we can.
Utilitarianism FTW in such cases. As far as I'm concerned, individuals, namely terrorists, who engage in these despicable acts and show a disregard for life forego any entitlement they may have to human rights or any form humanity.
I can think of some situations where it probably would be justified. But every example of torture being used in the real world that I have ever come accross was completely unjustified. What did torturing the inmates at gauntanamo and abu graib achieve? It certainly didn't stop a nuclear bomb/massive terrorist attack or anything like that.
No way.
- Banned
- #8
No. If the question were "If it is certain that a confirmed terrorist holds information that will undoubtedly save many lives and torture is the only possible avenue, then is his torture ok?", then it becomes more interesting.
As is, any other answer than "No" leaves alleged terrorists in the hands of military personnel, who may or may not be overzealous, sloppy or just plain sadistic.
How many published cases are there of torture leading to the successful interception of a terrorist plot? I'd imagine any pro-torture lobby would be interested to see any such instances made public.
As is, any other answer than "No" leaves alleged terrorists in the hands of military personnel, who may or may not be overzealous, sloppy or just plain sadistic.
How many published cases are there of torture leading to the successful interception of a terrorist plot? I'd imagine any pro-torture lobby would be interested to see any such instances made public.
- Banned
- #11
Considering torture has been shown to be no more effective then regular interrogation ... no.
It is a really hard question to answer, and I suppose experiences on either side of the coin would affect my answer. If myself or a family member were tortured I'd be more inclined to say no, but were I to lose someone to a terrorist act I'd have no hesitation in telling them to string the bastard up and get everything they can out of him.
In an ideal world, those doing the torturing would be held accountable for their actions if there was no real evidence that the person tortured was witholding important information. Such is the nature of intelligence, though, that isn't going to happen.
In an ideal world, those doing the torturing would be held accountable for their actions if there was no real evidence that the person tortured was witholding important information. Such is the nature of intelligence, though, that isn't going to happen.
The problem is that terrorists don't send detailed plans of their activities by email that can be intercepted to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an attack will occur.
Conclusions are generally drawn from little pieces of information from a variety of sources - and those conclusions are usually vague and relate to something going on in a general area as opposed to a specific incident. That you may need to torture someone to obtain further information indicates that you probably don't have enough information to prove beyond reasonable doubt in the first place.
And to answer the question - I just don't know.
- Banned
- #14
What if the guy throws a dog off a bridge?
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
How would you know?
- Banned
- #16
No.4
All types of moral issues come into play, however if the person is proven without a doubt to be part of an organization that has or is planning to kill innocent people then hit them with some drug induced interrogations. I don't think physical torture can be justified, however any drug that can extract the truth and save lives then bring it.
Where would the limits end, though? What limits would state law impose on the use of torture, if any?
Say there was a tough-minded female terrorist and you needed information only she had. You deprive her of sleep and blast her cell for six hours straight with white noise and air-pressure horns every day for a week. She won't talk.
You pull her fingernails out. She won't talk. You break all of her fingers. She won't talk.
How much deeper in depravity would you need to go? Say the humiliation of rape was the ONLY way to break this terrorist. Would you back state-sanctioned rape?
Say there was a tough-minded female terrorist and you needed information only she had. You deprive her of sleep and blast her cell for six hours straight with white noise and air-pressure horns every day for a week. She won't talk.
You pull her fingernails out. She won't talk. You break all of her fingers. She won't talk.
How much deeper in depravity would you need to go? Say the humiliation of rape was the ONLY way to break this terrorist. Would you back state-sanctioned rape?
- Banned
- #20
If she was hot, and I got to do the raping, maybe.
- Banned
- #21
No.
This presumes torture is an effective method of interrogation, which it is not.
What torture is good at is eliciting confessions, real or otherwise.
It is likely people will provide false or incorrect information (which could have grave consequences) and much like the death penalty the cost of incorrect usage or room for abuse is far to great.
This presumes torture is an effective method of interrogation, which it is not.
What torture is good at is eliciting confessions, real or otherwise.
It is likely people will provide false or incorrect information (which could have grave consequences) and much like the death penalty the cost of incorrect usage or room for abuse is far to great.
No, because it will only result in short term benefits with a possibly for worse long term results, and that's without getting into the morality of it. Lets take Gitmo for example, it was the biggest advertising billboard al-Qaeda could have ever hoped for and helped recruit thousands of new members.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Who should the burden of proof be on, those advocating torture or the people that are actually ordering it and the ones carrying it out?
As if the latter 2 groups would acknowledge it occurs, let alone any attacks it may avert or any information that is gathered, useful or otherwise.
I'm a bit on the fence with this one, but if they're going to do it they would be better off shooting them in the head once they've been tapped of information. Save the scrutiny.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Banned
- #24
No.
Today it's terrorists, tomorrow it's "alleged criminals".
I wouldn't trust the government with that kind of power.
Today it's terrorists, tomorrow it's "alleged criminals".
I wouldn't trust the government with that kind of power.
the producer has said it was his aim to make torture acceptable. Add this to Alan Dershowitz' screed. You get the picture. It has to be seen through the prism of "clash of civilisations", the ME, and Israel-Palestine conflicts.
Ofcourse, one could say "School of Americas", but this current prevalence of the discourse is to do with the former.
Slavov Zizek has interesting things to say about the prevalence of "western democracies" (to borrow a phrase from Billy Kristol) and their use of "enhanced interrogation techniques. His book is called just "Violence".
