Torture etc.
- Thread starter spankingman
- Start date
.Oh goodness, I hope not.
But I do believe that we must show leadership not only locally, but globally: we must require that prisoners handed over by the Canadian Forces not be treated any different than those captured by any other force, AND that no such prisoners be subjected to torture.
But in the absence of the latter, we must be careful to not differ too much on the former.
B
burt-oh-my!
I would not be sacrificing anyone. How do you figure that?
What I would not sacrifice are principles, which is the ssence of all morality. And I'm talking about the law here.
Unbelieveable how some are willing to give the state the right to torture people. "Only when you are 100% sure they are guilty!" lol, how naiive can you be?
As for these people with these hypothetical sitautions where you NEED to torture someone to save lives etc, well, history shows that torture is used to extract confessions, usually not for the purpose of justice but to somehow prove that the torturer's group is correct. Think star chambers, political confessions the world over, esp Stalin's Russia. Such torture has no impact on saving lives at all.
And it makes me laugh to hear those who say, well, sleep deprivation is OK because its not TOO bad! Kind of defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?
This reminds me of the debate on abortion. There will always be strongly held views on both sides of the argument. I have no problem with that but my concern is that those on the wrong side of the torture debate will get my daughter killed
. Not doing everything possible to save one's daughter from her kidnappers is the most immoral position of all.
. Not doing everything possible to save one's daughter from her kidnappers is the most immoral position of all.
It's an awfully ugly world and because of that, I think torture should be legal. Here's why.
1. Doesn't work? Respectfully, I say bullshit. Sure it doesn't work when the victim is innocent. No kidding. But when they're not, many times it will work, especially if done correctly. No, I don't have studies to cite, but lots of ex military types will tell you the same. And by the way...why do you think they keep doing it? Ask yourself, would you cough up the info? I know I would.
2. Whether it's legal or not, in desperate situations, it will be used. Therefore, it's much better to have laws around its use. Put in place a system that forces torture to be properly recorded and documented. The system should also clearly set out how and under what circumstances torture could be used.
3. Given the ticking time bomb scenario, I think its use can be moral. Would you want to the tell the family of a murdered victim that you had the culprit in custody and failed to use every available option?
1. Doesn't work? Respectfully, I say bullshit. Sure it doesn't work when the victim is innocent. No kidding. But when they're not, many times it will work, especially if done correctly. No, I don't have studies to cite, but lots of ex military types will tell you the same. And by the way...why do you think they keep doing it? Ask yourself, would you cough up the info? I know I would.
2. Whether it's legal or not, in desperate situations, it will be used. Therefore, it's much better to have laws around its use. Put in place a system that forces torture to be properly recorded and documented. The system should also clearly set out how and under what circumstances torture could be used.
3. Given the ticking time bomb scenario, I think its use can be moral. Would you want to the tell the family of a murdered victim that you had the culprit in custody and failed to use every available option?
A society that does not use all possible means to protect my family is not worth defending.
Scenario: You are walking down the street minding your own business when the police haul you in as a suspect in a kidnapping. You exercise your right to remain silent. The police relay the situation to the kidnapped child's parent and ask him if they should torture you to get you to talk. WHAT do you want done?
A Canadian soldier who operates artillery, which has caused collateral damage to Afghani women and children, is captured by the Taliban. The Taliban call him a terrorist. What do you want done to the Canadian?
Thank you, LJ, for a (sadly-rare) sensible contribution to the debate.
Read Alan Dershowitz's book on the subject. He objects to the hypocrisy of denying T in public but using it secretly. The way to use T, in a democracy, is to have clear written rules and to set limits -- not least as to the methods that can be employed. The circumstances in which T could be used would be laid down in the rules. For instance, if investigators are in a ticking time bomb situation, the rules would have been figured out beforehand, and that would be covered; they would apply for a warrant - provided they had probable cause.
AD even suggests the method -- it should be a (sterilized) needle under the finger nail. Apparently, you get over that, with no ill effects, almost as soon as it stops. Makes you cringe just to hear it, though. Maybe that's the idea.
B
burt-oh-my!
What you all don't get is that there aren't any ticking time bomb situations. In reality, it isn't happenning. You've all watched too many TV shows where someone is buried in a coffin and if you don't get the information someone will die.
Torture is used IN REALITY for political reasons. Now, of course, the pro-torturers will say, "why, WE won't use it for that purpose", which kind of reminds of those who supported communism in the 70's saying, that it was great in principle, just not done properly in practise. If something is never done properly IN PRACTISE, it is undoubtedly flawed IN PRINCIPLE.
In our system, we believe in due process and innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. I like our system. If the price of avoiding torture is to take some 'hits' once in a while in terms of casualties, to me that is a price well worth paying. The exact same principle applies to the 'better for 99 guilty to go free than 1 innocent be sent to jail' idea. We are willing to accept a few 'hits' in terms of guilty people going free in order to ensure that an innocent person never ever gets punished.
Would I like it if it were my daughter? OF COURSE NOT< BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. The law is there to stop us all from doing a lot of things we'd 'like' to do. When we are in the situation we hate it, but outside of it we accept the need for constraints.
One way of looking at any issue is to say, "who else follows this particular path, and would I want to be like them?". Think of the countries that practise torture, and tell me if you want to be like them.
Torture is used IN REALITY for political reasons. Now, of course, the pro-torturers will say, "why, WE won't use it for that purpose", which kind of reminds of those who supported communism in the 70's saying, that it was great in principle, just not done properly in practise. If something is never done properly IN PRACTISE, it is undoubtedly flawed IN PRINCIPLE.
In our system, we believe in due process and innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. I like our system. If the price of avoiding torture is to take some 'hits' once in a while in terms of casualties, to me that is a price well worth paying. The exact same principle applies to the 'better for 99 guilty to go free than 1 innocent be sent to jail' idea. We are willing to accept a few 'hits' in terms of guilty people going free in order to ensure that an innocent person never ever gets punished.
Would I like it if it were my daughter? OF COURSE NOT< BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. The law is there to stop us all from doing a lot of things we'd 'like' to do. When we are in the situation we hate it, but outside of it we accept the need for constraints.
One way of looking at any issue is to say, "who else follows this particular path, and would I want to be like them?". Think of the countries that practise torture, and tell me if you want to be like them.
lucky is way off the mark with his assumption there is a pool of statistical data showing that torture works. He is arguing the Utilitarian justification for immoral behaviour, a branch of moral thought that holds little credibility when held up against the more pure models of morality (read Kant and Acquinas for a more human outlook on the issue).
The truth gleaned from the statistics is quite the opposite. Torture has been shown to fail again and again, the driving reason being that a person under extreme physical duress has been shown to be willing to say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear, in order to make the pain stop. The largest "experiment" with torture was conducted by the French Army in Algiers, in the early 1960's. No, it wasn't an experiment, it was a war against an insurgency that sought to remove the French from Algeria. The French tortured thousands, got some golden information, but got mostly unusable bullshit. To boot, despite a tactical victory in Algiers itself, they lost the country to a quiet, non-violent uprising that simply removed a brutal and oppressive regime through.....democracy! Bonjour. The old French fuckers who ordered the torture have long since recanted and have famously decried the use of torture in Algiers as wrong and an utter failure. Same experience by more modern regimes who applied torture, from the Khmer Rouge to Saddam Hussein to the good old USA. Hopefully our American friends will soon end this beastly practice that has completely removed them from the top of the list of the world's most loved and trusted countries (I think they're somewhere below Chile, now). Torture is a failure as an intelligence tool.
It is also morally reprehensible under any circumstances. It scars the torturing nation far worse than it scars the victims.
The truth gleaned from the statistics is quite the opposite. Torture has been shown to fail again and again, the driving reason being that a person under extreme physical duress has been shown to be willing to say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear, in order to make the pain stop. The largest "experiment" with torture was conducted by the French Army in Algiers, in the early 1960's. No, it wasn't an experiment, it was a war against an insurgency that sought to remove the French from Algeria. The French tortured thousands, got some golden information, but got mostly unusable bullshit. To boot, despite a tactical victory in Algiers itself, they lost the country to a quiet, non-violent uprising that simply removed a brutal and oppressive regime through.....democracy! Bonjour. The old French fuckers who ordered the torture have long since recanted and have famously decried the use of torture in Algiers as wrong and an utter failure. Same experience by more modern regimes who applied torture, from the Khmer Rouge to Saddam Hussein to the good old USA. Hopefully our American friends will soon end this beastly practice that has completely removed them from the top of the list of the world's most loved and trusted countries (I think they're somewhere below Chile, now). Torture is a failure as an intelligence tool.
It is also morally reprehensible under any circumstances. It scars the torturing nation far worse than it scars the victims.
Torture will only work if you have a way of verifying what the victim is saying. If you can not verify what is being said whats the point, a man with his testicles in a vise will for the most part say whatever you want to hear in order to stop the pain. That is the big problem with torture.
Is torture morally reprehensible? Under our value system yes it is, can I say that I would never in any circumstances use it? No I can not I can not concieve of a reason too use it but at the same time its a big ugly world out there and somebody could eventually come up with a reason to make me change my mind. What that reason is I don't know at present.
On the plus side ( poor choice of words perhaps) if you can verify any part of the story you are looking for you can use that to force the victim to talk truthfully, as well the reputation that you will torture somebody will work in your favour some will talk just because of the reputation.
Is torture morally reprehensible? Under our value system yes it is, can I say that I would never in any circumstances use it? No I can not I can not concieve of a reason too use it but at the same time its a big ugly world out there and somebody could eventually come up with a reason to make me change my mind. What that reason is I don't know at present.
On the plus side ( poor choice of words perhaps) if you can verify any part of the story you are looking for you can use that to force the victim to talk truthfully, as well the reputation that you will torture somebody will work in your favour some will talk just because of the reputation.
I wouldn't feel much sympathy for these scumbag kidnappers if they were caught and got some of their own medicine.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22718599
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22718599
Almost every police investigation involves making a suspect uncomfortable and asking questions to gather information. Sometimes this interrogation can proceed for several hours non-stop, regardless of how tired the suspect may be.
According to most definitions, that is torture.
It's just a matter of degree.
Apparently people here wouldn't even want to capture a terrorist's accomplices before the bomb is deployed, if it means keeping a lesser suspect up past his bedtime. And that is a shame.
That is fine as long as it is you, your family and your dog. Just don't impose that principle on others.
There are also people who won't advocate abortion, heart transplants, blood transfusions, etc. under any circumstances. Some would let their son die than give him a blood transfusion. Good for them, but not for me.
you can only play by the rules when both or all parties respect the rules, if your enemy has no rules, have the balls to do whatever is required to get the job done or stay home. Torture is a very useful tool depending on the circumstances.
Buttercup, it was Dershowitz's argument that I was thinking of. I've posted this on a thread some time ago. I didn't read his book, just an essay, and I heard him interviewed on the subject. He makes a lot of sense.
Burt-oh-my, you don't think there are EVER situations where the authorities are working against time to prevent harm coming to innocents? That's a ticking time bomb scenario.
The remedy Dershowitz is putting forward is one that actually humanizes the situation. Right now, the torture happens and is effectively without undertaken without rules. The U.S. resorts to euphemisms to defend its behaviour in Guantanamo and other bases around the world, or they take the coward's way out through extraordinary rendition - which is simply torture carried out by henchmen states. Is that more moral than having the guts to do it yourself?
What I understand Dershowitz to have said is, if we're going to do it, lets clearly set out the rules that govern our behaviour. Let's spell out what a ticking time bomb scenario is, and exactly what we will do in such situations. Lets stick to our values of being a civilized state that observes the rule of law. Anyone then caught committing torture outside these rules could be punished.
Burt-oh-my, you don't think there are EVER situations where the authorities are working against time to prevent harm coming to innocents? That's a ticking time bomb scenario.
The remedy Dershowitz is putting forward is one that actually humanizes the situation. Right now, the torture happens and is effectively without undertaken without rules. The U.S. resorts to euphemisms to defend its behaviour in Guantanamo and other bases around the world, or they take the coward's way out through extraordinary rendition - which is simply torture carried out by henchmen states. Is that more moral than having the guts to do it yourself?
What I understand Dershowitz to have said is, if we're going to do it, lets clearly set out the rules that govern our behaviour. Let's spell out what a ticking time bomb scenario is, and exactly what we will do in such situations. Lets stick to our values of being a civilized state that observes the rule of law. Anyone then caught committing torture outside these rules could be punished.
