V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Black Jaque:
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.
All this assumes that torture “works.”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.
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.