What is torture and should we ever use it

  • Thread starter Thread starter roymckenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Black Jaque:
I think of torture as pain inflicted without giving the subject an “out”. I.E. a policeman who roughs up a beligerent crook does so only to the point where the crook begins to co-operate at which point the rough treatment ceases - that would be reasonable.

It would be wrong to torture someone and use the guise of giving them and “out” by coercing them to act against their dignity or rights. That is a false “out” because the prisoner has to choose between severe physical pain or severe mental/spiritual pain. I.E. an interrogator who beats a prisoner until the prisoner renounces his faith.

As long as the “out” or path of no-pain is a path of moral truth, then it isn’t torture. Provided the harsh treatment is commensurate.

Trying to coerce a confession is not right either, as a person has a right not to self-incriminate. Trying to coerce information that would stop a disaster might be acceptable, the prisoner has no right to cause the disaster.
All this assumes that torture “works.”

It doesn’t. You can torture a confession out of an innocent person, but you cannot torture reliable intelligence out of them. People under torture will say what the interrogator wants to hear – whether it is true or not.

Simply to advance the idea that torture “works” is to suggest there is a moral basis for justifying torture – and there isn’t.
 
Black Jaque:
I think of torture as pain inflicted without giving the subject an “out”. I.E. a policeman who roughs up a beligerent crook does so only to the point where the crook begins to co-operate at which point the rough treatment ceases - that would be reasonable.

It would be wrong to torture someone and use the guise of giving them and “out” by coercing them to act against their dignity or rights. That is a false “out” because the prisoner has to choose between severe physical pain or severe mental/spiritual pain. I.E. an interrogator who beats a prisoner until the prisoner renounces his faith.

As long as the “out” or path of no-pain is a path of moral truth, then it isn’t torture. Provided the harsh treatment is commensurate.

Trying to coerce a confession is not right either, as a person has a right not to self-incriminate. Trying to coerce information that would stop a disaster might be acceptable, the prisoner has no right to cause the disaster.
Let’s forget for a moment that you are using a criteria that implies that immoral behavior on your part is made legitimate because someone else is thwarting your otherwise moral goals (that is, the ends justify the means). Your standard is still impractical, right off the top.

You are assuming that a) you know whether the subject knows something or not when you start torturing them, so that you will only torture when they have information to give you and b) that the subject will agree with your assessment of whether it would be moral or not for him or her to give you the information you want --what is “moral truth” to you is usually “treason” or the equivalent to your enemy! – and c) that you know whether or not the subject is going to have to incriminate themselves in order to give up the information. (Besides, something about the Gonzalez memos tells me that they probably aren’t reading Miranda or letting prisoners take the 5th in Iraq!)

If you were a mind-reader, you might know this stuff, but in that case, you wouldn’t need to interogate anyone, would you?
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
Let’s forget for a moment that you are using a criteria that implies that immoral behavior on your part is made legitimate because someone else is thwarting your otherwise moral goals (that is, the ends justify the means). Your standard is still impractical, right off the top.

You are assuming that a) you know whether the subject knows something or not when you start torturing them, so that you will only torture when they have information to give you and b) that the subject will agree with your assessment of whether it would be moral or not for him or her to give you the information you want --what is “moral truth” to you is usually “treason” or the equivalent to your enemy! – and c) that you know whether or not the subject is going to have to incriminate themselves in order to give up the information. (Besides, something about the Gonzalez memos tells me that they probably aren’t reading Miranda or letting prisoners take the 5th in Iraq!)

If you were a mind-reader, you might know this stuff, but in that case, you wouldn’t need to interogate anyone, would you?
Exactly right! A person under torture will say what his interrogator wants to hear.

“Well,” the supporters of torture say, “we’ll separate them and torture them until they all tell the same story.”

And that story will be made up – a man says something, and gets pain. He says something different and the pain stops – in a while, a dozen men will be telling the same story – without ever communicating with each other.

Anyone with any doubts ought to read about the McMartin Preschool Case, where children told fantastic stories about molestation, all induced by their interrogators.
 
It’s amazing we’ve so quickly reached a point where people will openly defend torture of prisoners. Once upon a time, say a mere 6 years ago, everyone knew torture was against the principles of America.

Funny how scared people lose their moral sense, isn’t it?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
It’s amazing we’ve so quickly reached a point where people will openly defend torture of prisoners. Once upon a time, say a mere 6 years ago, everyone knew torture was against the principles of America.

Funny how scared people lose their moral sense, isn’t it?
To bad unborn children can’t fight back,huh,Tlaloc?Or is that the only torture that is reasonable to you:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top