Torture

[Her]

i don't have an interest in taking part in this debate so i'm going to lay out some common questions about the highly controversial discussion on modern torture and let you all do as you wish
my international relations lecturer has a session dedicated to torture near the beginning of each semester as she finds it one of the best subjects to make students uneasy and it opens them up to the often grim realities of international relations and people's responses to hypothetical scenarios
i agree with her as 90% of the class was unwilling to put forth an opinion on the subject for fear of judgement, thus giving the lecturer exactly what she wanted to start the lesson with

firstly, what is torture today? does it extend to more than just the definition put down by the united nations?
is torture justifiable? if so, what makes it justifiable?
can you name & convince other posters in the thread of a real life situation where torture has been used in a justifiable manner?
is it possible to have a neutral opinion on torture?
is the act of torture something that governments should face consequences for?
and finally, is there anything else you would like to discuss on this subject? do as you wish

i don't expect each question to be answered methodically, rather, they should be used as stepping stones to a higher discussion
but again, do as you think is necessary

 

[Kanzler]

Ughhhhh... this is difficult.

I take the position that states, in the interest of their security, will take measures to extract information from valuable individuals. From the state's perspective, their goal isn't to harm people for the sake of harming them, but to gain information. I would also say that in a crisis, a state will not blink twice before torturing someone for information.

I think torture can be justified, more so during an emergency and when many lives are on the line. I think I'll stick to this utilitarian argument until somebody rebuts because I don't know much about the subject.

 

[Entermaid]

Depends on the end being achieved. If torture doesn't assist in that end, eliciting false confessions and information, then no I don't support it, if it does assist in that end then I do support it. That is, assuming the end itself is justifiable. This goes along the line of Kanzler's utilitarian argument. (By the way, he is a smart guy *wink wink*)

*Sidenote*
I would like to see more done with the colloquially referred to "truth serums" in conjunction with brain-mapping and polygraphs as means of psychological coercion.

The supreme court, nearly 50 years ago, banned the use of these techniques for 5th amendment rights protection of self-indictment. But, if the science is more perfected, and it certainly isn't exact yet, I would like to see these techniques employed in domestic courts and dealings with external threats, domestic and abroad. If the truth is what we are seeking and the end is justice, a breach of a principle doesn't seem to outweigh the obstruction of true justice and ensuring those who do not commit crimes are protected and those who do commit crimes are punished.

Though truth serums seem like a retro-sci-fi mystical potion, the use of drugs that "loosen up" and make more vulnerable those interrogated have been recently used in reaction to the Aurora Shootings. It was used as a method to determine if the shooter was legitimately insane. The active substances in these concoctions also make the interrogated individuals more trusting of their interrogators, which could prove useful in a line of questioning as far as participation goes.

I am sure the US does use such techniques, along with other countries. The fear does remain, what happens if terrorist groups get a hold of such techniques? Gaining access to launch codes and damaging information?

With that said, such techniques might serve better for the CIA in secret, rather than used for public disputes, making the techniques public and easily attainable might be more devastating than not attaining truth in the justice system. That is, if we have a justice system better able to discern true victims and perpetrators, that doesn't mean anything if national security is at risk.

Okay, I am abdicating what I said before, I don't want to see more about truth serums being used by the Court Systems and Federal Government *winking at the Feds*

 

[Kanzler]

Truth serums can be problematic if the interrogated starts saying things out of his suggestibility rather his experience of actually doing them. However, let's assume that truth serums indeed are able to make anybody tell 100% of the truth. I don't see how they would violate 5th amendment rights any more than indefinite detention. All you'd have to do is apply the serum, get the intel, and never put the suspect on trial - he'd never have to testify against himself. Since both President and Congress have voted in favour of indefinite detention, it's probably here to stay.

To expand on my last post, I propose that it is possible that there are some cases in which some public good overrides some individual right - in this case freedom from severe pain and suffering inflicted by persons acting in an official capacity (from UN Convention Against Torture). If the above proposition is true, then torture can be permissible.

We know that the public good should be able to override individual rights in certain cases: not only is this intuitive, but it is also enshrined in the case of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution as well as Section 1 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("[The Charter] guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society").

Should a public good be able to override one's freedom from inflicted severe pain and suffering? My answer is still yes. Life and treasure of a state is more important than the pain and suffering of some enemy combatant.

 

[Oryx]

One of the biggest problems with torture for me is that there's no way to really 100% know that 1. what you're getting is the truth and 2. that you'll get anything at all, or that the person knows anything at all. We can't read minds; even if the person was there, they might not remember or weren't completely paying attention to what you're asking about or was intentionally left in the dark. Because we have no way of objectively saying "I know for a fact that this person remembers what I'm trying to tell them, was there, and was informed enough to know what was happening/the truth", we can't reliably separate the innocent from the lying and decide who to torture.

Plus, torture holds the same problems that modern truth serums do as Kanzler noted - I'm a wuss. If I was tortured, I would lie my butt off to end the torturing. I would say I was part of a terrorist organization, I would list random names to force them to investigate them, I would tell them anything they wanted to hear to make it stop. You're already inflicting severe physical and mental anguish on the person - it's not like it can get much lower for them, so might as well lie and get the torture to abate at least temporarily until they figure it out.

I think from a practical perspective torture is unreliable and can't be narrowed down to only people who actually know anything, so I don't find it a useful tool at all, even ignoring human rights issues.

 

[RivalGator]

firstly, what is torture today? does it extend to more than just the definition put down by the united nations?
is torture justifiable? if so, what makes it justifiable?
can you name & convince other posters in the thread of a real life situation where torture has been used in a justifiable manner?
is it possible to have a neutral opinion on torture?
is the act of torture something that governments should face consequences for?
and finally, is there anything else you would like to discuss on this subject? do as you wish

I think torture should actually be used as a method of control and fear. In every country. This may seem radical, but I'm going to try and explain this the best I can. You hear about all this violence going through the world. Most of the time, in most countries that call themselves 'civilized' people simply go to jail and serve their time. I think that's too lenient. I think people need to fear punishment, the same way a child would for making a bad grade. Like if they are punished it will be the end of the world. If they know they can get visitation, television, outings from their cells, and food, they are going to realize that they're okay. I mean, whether it is rape or not, people even have sex in prison. People don't fear prison the way it was originally intended.

Instead they should be put on display in public, and depending on the severity, be beaten badly into submission, or have the offending body part chopped off. People will be more afraid to be convicted of rape if they have their nether parts cut off, lips or hands. Even teeth if they had bitten. Thieves get a finger cut off with every conviction, until they start losing things like their hands or feet. And people can watch as this happens.

If they have to be put away from the population, then they need to be put into a black room where there are no windows, no toilets or air conditioning. They can have a slot under the door where they get food that had been found in dumpsters. They still pay their own bills for taking up and wasting space, breathing our air. If they attempt to escape, they get a bullet to the head.

It sounds like a slaughterhouse, but crime would drop... I can promise you that. People wouldn't live in fear if they are not up to anything. Only the criminals would suffer. I think torture should be used to create fear among a general group of people.

 

[Kanzler]

I think torture should actually be used as a method of control and fear. In every country. This may seem radical, but I'm going to try and explain this the best I can. You hear about all this violence going through the world. Most of the time, in most countries that call themselves 'civilized' people simply go to jail and serve their time. I think that's too lenient. I think people need to fear punishment, the same way a child would for making a bad grade. Like if they are punished it will be the end of the world. If they know they can get visitation, television, outings from their cells, and food, they are going to realize that they're okay. I mean, whether it is rape or not, people even have sex in prison. People don't fear prison the way it was originally intended.

Instead they should be put on display in public, and depending on the severity, be beaten badly into submission, or have the offending body part chopped off. People will be more afraid to be convicted of rape if they have their nether parts cut off, lips or hands. Even teeth if they had bitten. Thieves get a finger cut off with every conviction, until they start losing things like their hands or feet. And people can watch as this happens.

If they have to be put away from the population, then they need to be put into a black room where there are no windows, no toilets or air conditioning. They can have a slot under the door where they get food that had been found in dumpsters. They still pay their own bills for taking up and wasting space, breathing our air. If they attempt to escape, they get a bullet to the head.

It sounds like a slaughterhouse, but crime would drop... I can promise you that. People wouldn't live in fear if they are not up to anything. Only the criminals would suffer. I think torture should be used to create fear among a general group of people.

So you're advocating for the use of torture in which the public interest is not the extraction of critical information but deterrence for crimes. If I understand you correctly, you are simply advocating for harsher punishments in the justice system.

I'm not sure if that is relevant to the OP, because although torture is defined as any kind of severe suffering inflicted in an official capacity, the discussion is about torture as it relates to international relations, not law enforcement.

 

[Her]

the discussion of torture can go in any way it wants so long as it maintains intelligent discussion

 

[Entermaid]

I think torture should actually be used as a method of control and fear. In every country. This may seem radical, but I'm going to try and explain this the best I can. You hear about all this violence going through the world. Most of the time, in most countries that call themselves 'civilized' people simply go to jail and serve their time. I think that's too lenient. I think people need to fear punishment, the same way a child would for making a bad grade. Like if they are punished it will be the end of the world. If they know they can get visitation, television, outings from their cells, and food, they are going to realize that they're okay. I mean, whether it is rape or not, people even have sex in prison. People don't fear prison the way it was originally intended.

Instead they should be put on display in public, and depending on the severity, be beaten badly into submission, or have the offending body part chopped off. People will be more afraid to be convicted of rape if they have their nether parts cut off, lips or hands. Even teeth if they had bitten. Thieves get a finger cut off with every conviction, until they start losing things like their hands or feet. And people can watch as this happens.

If they have to be put away from the population, then they need to be put into a black room where there are no windows, no toilets or air conditioning. They can have a slot under the door where they get food that had been found in dumpsters. They still pay their own bills for taking up and wasting space, breathing our air. If they attempt to escape, they get a bullet to the head.

It sounds like a slaughterhouse, but crime would drop... I can promise you that. People wouldn't live in fear if they are not up to anything. Only the criminals would suffer. I think torture should be used to create fear among a general group of people.

This is a typical authoritarian argument. Usually we refute authoritarianism for its own sake, though I would say some aspects of authoritarian regimes are effective, but the negative outputs outweigh the positive ones. That is why degrees and extent of punishments and controls is more effective of an approach rather than assuming maximizing or minimizing punishments/controls will have maximum outputs -- both lead to instability.

Machiavelli would suggest that torture as a public display to the extent described above can have the negative consequence to the sovereign insofar as, it breeds a revolutionary citizenry. Rather, controls should seek to maintain order, and when that show of power and deterring displays of punishment exceed their utility, the "controls" are no longer "controls", and rather engender radical states. The goal as an authoritarian, in his philosophy, is to be loved more than feared by the populace.

That is why I don't see brutal public punishments and torture as effective or stabilizing, regardless of the typical ethical counter-arguments, even within an authoritarian regime.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

One of humans' most notorious excuses for being sick creatures. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work and is just a justification to be evil to people you don't like.

 

[Sir Codin]

Torture is done for nothing more than the twisted pleasures of the torturer and it's also very unreliable as a means of gathering information.

In any society that is truly just and civilized, the use of torture is never justified. Ever.

 

[RivalGator]

So you're advocating for the use of torture in which the public interest is not the extraction of critical information but deterrence for crimes. If I understand you correctly, you are simply advocating for harsher punishments in the justice system.

I'm not sure if that is relevant to the OP, because although torture is defined as any kind of severe suffering inflicted in an official capacity, the discussion is about torture as it relates to international relations, not law enforcement.

Sigh.
Yeeeees, this is relevant. Torture is torture. Got views. Yada yada.

This is a typical authoritarian argument. Usually we refute authoritarianism for its own sake, though I would say some aspects of authoritarian regimes are effective, but the negative outputs outweigh the positive ones. That is why degrees and extent of punishments and controls is more effective of an approach rather than assuming maximizing or minimizing punishments/controls will have maximum outputs -- both lead to instability.

Machiavelli would suggest that torture as a public display to the extent described above can have the negative consequence to the sovereign insofar as, it breeds a revolutionary citizenry. Rather, controls should seek to maintain order, and when that show of power and deterring displays of punishment exceed their utility, the "controls" are no longer "controls", and rather engender radical states. The goal as an authoritarian, in his philosophy, is to be loved more than feared by the populace.

That is why I don't see brutal public punishments and torture as effective or stabilizing, regardless of the typical ethical counter-arguments, even within an authoritarian regime.

Well, as for brutal public punishments I for one would feel more stable within my own country. I would feel as though people are actually taking care of things and not just housing people who deserve to die slow and painful deaths. I would love to watch people who hurt others get what's coming to them. I think the world of criminals needs to be more severe, and fear is the only way to keep most people safe. There will always be the idiot who tries to push his limits, but he'll change his mind once he's having his jaw ripped off or his legs broken or hands/legs sawed off while people watch. Rebellion or not, this should be done. I don't agree with degrees and extents because people basically get off with a slap on the wrist and go back out into the world feeling perfectly free to harm innocent people.

Criminals should walk around with their heads down in shame with a horrible disfigurement or missing limb so people will know exactly who they are and avoid them. People should be more de-sensitized to scary things such as torture, and be led to understand that people who deserve torture are lower than the lowest rodent on earth and that it's okay to massacre people like that.

I'm starting to veer a little to the outfield here, I'll just say this.

Yes! I support torture and I believe it should be a regular punishment for people (ESPECIALLY second time offenders, murderers, or pedophiles) to get the message across. I think torture would be effective and have a lot of good.

 

[Her]

i fail to see how a government allowing prisons/justice officials to rip off lower jaws, to paraphrase a bit of your argument, wouldn't get them a front seat in the hague court

 

[twocows]

Well, as for brutal public punishments I for one would feel more stable within my own country. I would feel as though people are actually taking care of things and not just housing people who deserve to die slow and painful deaths. I would love to watch people who hurt others get what's coming to them. I think the world of criminals needs to be more severe, and fear is the only way to keep most people safe. There will always be the idiot who tries to push his limits, but he'll change his mind once he's having his jaw ripped off or his legs broken or hands/legs sawed off while people watch. Rebellion or not, this should be done. I don't agree with degrees and extents because people basically get off with a slap on the wrist and go back out into the world feeling perfectly free to harm innocent people.

Criminals should walk around with their heads down in shame with a horrible disfigurement or missing limb so people will know exactly who they are and avoid them. People should be more de-sensitized to scary things such as torture, and be led to understand that people who deserve torture are lower than the lowest rodent on earth and that it's okay to massacre people like that.

I'm starting to veer a little to the outfield here, I'll just say this.

Yes! I support torture and I believe it should be a regular punishment for people (ESPECIALLY second time offenders, murderers, or pedophiles) to get the message across. I think torture would be effective and have a lot of good.

First of all, you're implying that breaking the law is the same thing as being a bad person. It's not. Law is not the source of ethics, ethics is the foundation of law.

Secondly, you seem to be seeing things in a very black-and-white manner. "If they break the law, they're the bad guy and they need to be punished." That kind of thing. But it's almost never so clear-cut, even if we don't take into account false accusations and convictions (and that's a pretty major thing not to take into account).

For instance, second-time offenders of what? Any crime? Are we going to torture and murder jay-walkers now? Again, breaking the law does not by itself make someone a bad person. And murder? That can have a million different contexts. Soldiers in the armed forces are murderers from a certain perspective. Should they be tortured as well for their heinous crime of acting in defense of their country's interests? Or what of someone acting in self-defense? Or perhaps, say... to punish someone for a crime, as you might have done? And pedophiles, do you even know what that term means? An X-phile is someone who loves or is obsessed with X. That doesn't describe any kind of action, it just describes a state of mind. Thoughts cannot be unethical, only actions (or the intent to act) can be unethical. Are you going to torture someone who's done nothing other than think the wrong thing?

You suggest that fear is the only thing that can keep people in line. We aren't animals. For most people, our understanding of morality and the value of human life and prosperity is what "keeps us in line." There are obviously a few bad eggs, but you don't build a system of governance that generalizes all people around the worst elements of the human condition. You take those things into account, sure, but the whole of society shouldn't be made to live in fear because of the actions of a few rogue elements. Furthermore, in making the people live in constant fear of "the law," you would be robbing us of one of the very things you should be seeking to protect and something essential to our ability to be happy in life: our ability to live without fear.

A few other things. You implied that if someone's been tortured that they deserve it, which is a fallacious argument. Just because someone has been punished does not mean that they did something worth punishing. Also, that it's not only tolerable but acceptable to torture or kill people for having done something wrong. That's insane. Everyone has done something unethical at some point in their life if only because we don't have a complete understanding of right and wrong until we've learned it. Context is extremely important; every case varies, and many actual crimes are committed by people who either thought they were doing the right thing or who had a brief lapse in judgment. It may be that they should be punished, but not to such an extreme degree.

I'll close by saying that I find it mildly ironic that what you're suggesting is something that I believe is much worse than what you seek to punish and that I seriously hope you reconsider your position.