The Law Can torture be justified?

[blackcat]

Considering torture has been shown to be no more effective then regular interrogation ... no.

considering enhanced interrogation techniques are but a cute euphemism for torture, and enhanced interrogation has been the mode of the US...

 

[blackcat]

a hypothetical, Geoffry Robertson style...

if furniture movers or art students know and knew of, an impending terrorist attack, and they stood by, even though they were not a party to said attack, can we torture them to find out what they knew? And punish them for not telling us?

 

[blackcat]

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?

mission creep

 

[Contra Mundum]

We have a pre-eminant moral philosopher on this topic at Melbourne Uni. His name is Tony Coady. Don't worry he speaks in plain English. Here is a podcast in which he participated on this topic:

http://philosophybites.com/2009/10/tony-coady-on-dirty-hands-in-politics.html

 

[Sloth]

Torture is so unnecessary. All that's needed is a couple of tabs of E and maybe a bourbon or two and he'll sing like a bird.

 

[Frodo]

No way.

Then why do Freo supporters continue to watch their team?

 

[mantis]

Then why do Freo supporters continue to watch their team?

Stick to the topic, this isn't Bay13.

 

[Cap]

of course it can be justified. But not by people who sit in their suburban homes in Australia.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

of course it can be justified. But not by people who sit in their suburban homes in Australia.

So you can't justify it either, Cap?

 

[Chief]

We have a pre-eminant moral philosopher on this topic at Melbourne Uni. His name is Tony Coady. Don't worry he speaks in plain English. Here is a podcast in which he participated on this topic:

http://philosophybites.com/2009/10/tony-coady-on-dirty-hands-in-politics.html

Good. It points out that:

* The ticking bomb scenario is incredibly unlikely. You need a bomb, a person you KNOW is the bomber, you need to know they'll crack, you need to know they're not just going to string you along while someone else moves the bomb or plants another...

* In fact it is so unlikely that even considering it might hold its own perils, because it allows people to substitute other scenarios.

In short, no.

Torture can't be justified, and the circumstances where it seems to be justified are so highly improbable that considering it as a serious alternative might just be poisoning the collective moral well.

 

[mantis]

Torture is so unnecessary. All that's needed is a couple of tabs of E and maybe a bourbon or two and he'll sing like a bird.

Actually I've always thought about that, let's face it, when people are pissed they blurt out everything.

 

[medusala]

Torture can't be justified, and the circumstances where it seems to be justified are so highly improbable that considering it as a serious alternative might just be poisoning the collective moral well.

Depends on how you define torture. Take the Brits in NI. They sorted out numerous IRA chaps often by sleep deprivation and in doing so saved plenty of lives.

 

[Cap]

So you can't justify it either, Cap?

nope

but I hope to one day

 

[Cap]

Torture can't be justified, and the circumstances where it seems to be justified are so highly improbable that considering it as a serious alternative might just be poisoning the collective moral well.

I would have thought there would be numerous reasons for Torture to be justified, especially when it comes to find kidnapped people to avoiding mass murders (like suicide bombers).

In the world of extremism I would have thought some extremes need to be taken.

 

[Play by Numbers]

You think wrong I suppose.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Torture is so unnecessary. All that's needed is a couple of tabs of E and maybe a bourbon or two and he'll sing like a bird.

For a Muslim would that be akin to torture, plying them with drugs and alcohol?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Depends on how you define torture. Take the Brits in NI. They sorted out numerous IRA chaps often by sleep deprivation and in doing so saved plenty of lives.

The Brits would have been better off if they'd not been treating the Catholic population of Northern Ireland like second-class citizens, then firing on them when they marched for their civil rights.

The Brits, through their actions, COST plenty of lives.

 

[medusala]

The Brits would have been better off if they'd not been treating the Catholic population of Northern Ireland like second-class citizens, then firing on them when they marched for their civil rights.

The Brits, through their actions, COST plenty of lives.

Well that is one twisted, perverted version of history.

The army was sent in to protect the Catholics.

Who were the ones torturing and murdering pregnant women, bombing civilians repeatedly, murdering women simply for aiding a dying person, drilling holes in knee caps, dealing with international terrorists etc etc etc?

Why did so many IRA members inform? Why did so many Irish fight for the Brits in both wars (far, far more than ever took up arms for the IRA)?

As for torture working the Brits get a large number of tip offs from other countries re Muslim terrorism. Its probably fair to say (the Guardian may even be correct) that torture was used on a few occasions to get this info.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Well that is one twisted, perverted version of history.

Oh REALLY? Are you saying the Catholics had equal footing with the Protestants, are you?[/quote]

The army was sent in to protect the Catholics.

Protect them from what? Mistreatment? Mistreatment, was it? Gee, I wonder why they were upset in the first place.

Who were the ones torturing and murdering pregnant women, bombing civilians repeatedly, murdering women simply for aiding a dying person, drilling holes in knee caps, dealing with international terrorists etc etc etc?

Pregnant women? Enlighten me on this incident, meds. As for bombing civilians yes, there were numerous incidents I can't defend. Bombing pubs where off-duty soldiers drank, for one. I can't condone that sort of thing where the likelihood of 'collateral damage' in going to be high.

As for murdering women who aided a dying person - is that the 'Jean McConville' incident? According to what I've heard they shot her because they suspected her of being an informant. Not justification in my book, as I doubt she had fair legal representation herself. The incident should not have happened.

Knee-cappings... Yeah, not something I'd condone either.

Why did so many IRA members inform? Why did so many Irish fight for the Brits in both wars (far, far more than ever took up arms for the IRA)?

IRA members informing on their comrades? How many were turncoats and how many joined up with the express idea of informing? I don't know if they've released how that data breaks down yet, so it's anyone's guess.

I don't know why so many Irish fought for the Empire - life in Ireland wasn't too rosy at the time and maybe they wanted out at any cost.

As for torture working the Brits get a large number of tip offs from other countries re Muslim terrorism. Its probably fair to say (the Guardian may even be correct) that torture was used on a few occasions to get this info.

But is torture reliable? When I was younger my brother used to bend one of my fingers back until I said he was better at backyard footy, even though I was kicking his arse at the time.

We laugh about it now, but at the time I'd say anything to just make the pain stop.

That's how torture works, meds.

 

[Ted38]

Depends on how you define torture. Take the Brits in NI. They sorted out numerous IRA chaps often by sleep deprivation and in doing so saved plenty of lives.

And that's not all they did!

 

[Chief]

Depends on how you define torture.

And how would you define it?

 

[mantis]

But is torture reliable? When I was younger my brother used to bend one of my fingers back until I said he was better at backyard footy, even though I was kicking his arse at the time.

We laugh about it now, but at the time I'd say anything to just make the pain stop.

That's how torture works, meds.

I brought that same example up many posts back & it got ignored. If an innocent person is tortured, they will admit to anything to stop the pain.

Only the most hardened people could resist torture & therefore proves torture is useless, except for the torturers to get their rocks off.

 

[medusala]

Pregnant women? Enlighten me on this incident, meds.

A pregnant mother was murdered by them. Fairly well known case, pops up in the media every so often. In the 80s IIRC. Couldnt google it.

As for murdering women who aided a dying person - is that the 'Jean McConville' incident? According to what I've heard they shot her because they suspected her of being an informant.

She was not an informer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...er-of-10-shot-by-IRA-was-not-an-informer.html

Yesterday, however, investigators working for Nuala O'Loan, the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, said they had found no evidence to suggest she was an informer. Public pressure had forced the IRA into apologising for her murder, but it never withdrew the informant slur.

I don't know why so many Irish fought for the Empire - life in Ireland wasn't too rosy at the time and maybe they wanted out at any cost.

They supposedly hated the British yet they were only too willing to take the King's shilling.

But is torture reliable?

Debatable. There has been a bit written about an intelligence officer for the Poms in WWII who never allowed physical torture and had an exceptional record of turning spies and getting information.

This article mentions him and backs your case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article729216.ece

TORTURE IS MORALLY abhorrent, self-perpetuating, and illegal. But the most important argument against torture is that it doesn’t work. To illustrate this let me escort you, not to the cells of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, but to a London basement in 1942, where a British MI5 officer wearing a monocle is extracting a confession from a Nazi spy.

Colonel Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens was the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation centre codenamed Camp 020, an ugly Victorian mansion surrounded by barbed wire on the edge of Ham Common. In the course of the war, some 500 enemy spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020; most were interrogated, at some point, by Stephens; all but a tiny handful crumbled.

....continues.

 

[Chief]

“Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”

Sounds logical. You say what they want to hear, then fear the consequences if you backtrack.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A pregnant mother was murdered by them. Fairly well known case, pops up in the media every so often. In the 80s IIRC. Couldnt google it.

A pregnant woman was tragically killed in the Omagh bombing done by the Republican 'Real IRA' in 1998. (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Omagh_bombing). There's some suspicion that police 'steered' people into the path of the bomb, either unwittingly or otherwise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/09/northernireland.northernireland

An RUC officer who was one of the first policemen on the scene of the massacre recalled hearing some of the casualties minutes after the bomb exploded shouting to police: "You drove us into the bomb, police put us into the bomb."

The court was also told that there was a discrepancy between a bomb warning given by the Real IRA to the Samaritans in Northern Ireland at 2.34pm on August 15 1998 and one passed from RUC command to police officers on the ground in Omagh six minutes later.

The first message said the car bomb had been left in Main Street, which runs through the centre of Omagh, while, according to the first police witness, officers in the town were told there was a bomb near Omagh courthouse. As a result, police cleared the area around the courthouse.

A pregnant woman was also tragically killed in the Dublin bombings in 1974 by the Loyalist 'Ulster Volunteer Force'. (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings)

I'm sure pregnant women have been killed in U.S and allied airstrikes in both Iraq & Afghanistan recently as well, only to be dismissed as 'collateral damage' and quickly forgotten.

It dosen't excuse it, and the pain lasts a lifetime for the families of the victims. It's why we need to work away at addressing the ROOT CAUSES of conflicts, rather than closing the door once the horse has bolted.

She was not an informer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...er-of-10-shot-by-IRA-was-not-an-informer.html

Yesterday, however, investigators working for Nuala O'Loan, the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, said they had found no evidence to suggest she was an informer. Public pressure had forced the IRA into apologising for her murder, but it never withdrew the informant slur.

Fair enough. The killing was reprehensible and should never have been carried out.

They supposedly hated the British yet they were only too willing to take the King's shilling.

I can't work this out meself, meds. Young people have always left Ireland in droves during rough times, my own parents did it and maybe the King's shilling back then was preferable to unemployment.

Not exactly the honourable option though...

Debatable. There has been a bit written about an intelligence officer for the Poms in WWII who never allowed physical torture and had an exceptional record of turning spies and getting information.

This article mentions him and backs your case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article729216.ece

TORTURE IS MORALLY abhorrent, self-perpetuating, and illegal. But the most important argument against torture is that it doesn’t work. To illustrate this let me escort you, not to the cells of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, but to a London basement in 1942, where a British MI5 officer wearing a monocle is extracting a confession from a Nazi spy.

Colonel Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens was the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation centre codenamed Camp 020, an ugly Victorian mansion surrounded by barbed wire on the edge of Ham Common. In the course of the war, some 500 enemy spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020; most were interrogated, at some point, by Stephens; all but a tiny handful crumbled.

....continues.

Good find, meds. This is a good quote by ol' 'Tineye', which outlines the unreliability of physical torture.

"Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise."

EDIT: Damn you, Chief, the most stable genius,!!