Is Torture to Gain Information Ever Justified?

Silverhair · #1 (**permalink**) 08-26-2006, 11:58 PM

In the other thread, it was established that torture by directly inflicting pain, to make someone talk, often doesn't work. We shall call that "hard torture".

There are other forms of torture, water boarding, sensory deprivation, self-inflicted pain, mock executions, and so on that are often effective in breaking the victim's will to resist. For the purposes of discussion, we shall refer to that as "soft torture". Soft in that it leaves no bodily damage, only mental.

It has been learned that much of the information that resulted in the arrest, in Britian, of the recent terrorist plots to blow up airliners, was gained from Pakistan. It is very likely that such information was gained by torture.

Is torture ever justified? Please don't give a knee-jerk response. What if you are trying to prevent a nuclear bomb from getting to New York, and you have capture the terrorist leader who has all the info?

Where is the bar set? Is it a sliding bar? Is it more moral to allow millions to suffer and to die so that one person's may claim to be moral? Where is the real morality? What if we are not talking about nukes and NYC, but only some company level battlefield tactical information - highly useful to our company commander today, but useless tomorrow. Gaining the info would possibly save two or three lives in his command.

I am not really concerned about what some court or legislature says the law may or may not be. Those are written in air conditioned rooms without the the adrenalin rush of fear in the veins.

So, what do you think is right, and when, and why?

RASTAMAN · #2 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silverhair

In the other thread, it was established that torture by directly inflicting pain, to make someone talk, often doesn't work. We shall call that "hard torture".

There are other forms of torture, water boarding, sensory deprivation, self-inflicted pain, mock executions, and so on that are often effective in breaking the victim's will to resist. For the purposes of discussion, we shall refer to that as "soft torture". Soft in that it leaves no bodily damage, only mental.

It has been learned that much of the information that resulted in the arrest, in Britian, of the recent terrorist plots to blow up airliners, was gained from Pakistan. It is very likely that such information was gained by torture.

Is torture ever justified? Please don't give a knee-jerk response. What if you are trying to prevent a nuclear bomb from getting to New York, and you have capture the terrorist leader who has all the info?

Where is the bar set? Is it a sliding bar? Is it more moral to allow millions to suffer and to die so that one person's may claim to be moral? Where is the real morality? What if we are not talking about nukes and NYC, but only some company level battlefield tactical information - highly useful to our company commander today, but useless tomorrow. Gaining the info would possibly save two or three lives in his command.

I am not really concerned about what some court or legislature says the law may or may not be. Those are written in air conditioned rooms without the the adrenalin rush of fear in the veins.

So, what do you think is right, and when, and why?

Many people in this field have come to the conclusion that torture doesn't work to extract information. Especially if the person being tortured doesn't know anything---but will offer up any information just to stop the pain. Also, some people can withold the truth until they're body can't take it anymore and the tortue methods kill them. So either way you are back to square one.

rob · #3 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 01:20 PM

I agree that information received from using torture is un reliable. Although I think that we have to question suspects throughly to gleen what information they do have.

I also worry that in some cases that like Rasta said, prisioners will soon confess to just about anything. Then years later DNA clears that person, even though he confessed to the crime.

Like you I am not sure where the bar goes as to what is excessive. I think that this is best left to the professionals and not our elected officals and policy makers.

Dom1 · #4 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 01:28 PM

The biggest problem with torture as a device to gain information besides the fact that it will often be innacurate, is the effect it has on the society that sanctions it.

However, one example of torture working in recent memory is in the foiling of Operation Bojinka. The Filipino police tortured a prisoner and uncovered a plot to kill the pope and the hijacking of ten airlines heading towards America. How do the members of the forum feel about this? Is it better to have tortured information out of the prisoner, or would it have been better to take a moral high road and let the attempted assassination of the pope and the hijacking of ten planes happen?

It is like the following moral question. Would it be morally acceptable to travel back in time and kill Hitler? Murder is wrong, but what if that murder saves millions of lives.

rob · #5 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

The biggest problem with torture as a device to gain information besides the fact that it will often be innacurate, is the effect it has on the society that sanctions it.

However, one example of torture working in recent memory is in the foiling of Operation Bojinka. The Filipino police tortured a prisoner and uncovered a plot to kill the pope and the hijacking of ten airlines heading towards America. How do the members of the forum feel about this? Is it better to have tortured information out of the prisoner, or would it have been better to take a moral high road and let the attempted assassination of the pope and the hijacking of ten planes happen?

It is like the following moral question. Would it be morally acceptable to travel back in time and kill Hitler? Murder is wrong, but what if that murder saves millions of lives.

In this instance the ends justify the means. I am unsure if it is going to always be this way.

I will say that if torture is used to gain information that would save a friend oor family member I am not sure that I would be against using the info.

Lookagain · #6 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 01:44 PM

YES TORTURE IS JUSTIFIABLE

even only "IF it SAVES JUST ONE LIFE"

Now where have I heard that before:-)

RASTAMAN · #7 (**permalink**) 08-27-2006, 01:48 PM

Going down the torture road from a human rights persprective is moraly wrong and bears little information in the end. Human Intelligence is how you get the real facts.