Do you advocate the torture of suspected terrorists?

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

More information about torture HERE.

Specifically, people might want to click on the link and take the "Torture Test".

3 out of 5....not too shabby

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[freeflir29 0]

I got 3 out of 5 too. It just goes back to what you consider torture. I think my view and Amnesty International's views probably differ significantly.

[quade 4]

Oh, and I'm not saying that AI's view is the "correct" one in this post-September 11th, environment. But, it is a point of view and does document some of what I've been hinting at in some of my posts.

BTW, at 11:15 PST, hypothetical terrorist bomber #2 set off his bomb killing 10 and wounding 57 more people in a subway station in downtown New York.

It's still unclear whether hypothetical terrorist #1 actually knew #2 or not.

The clock is still ticking.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok, I'll give my opinion. Torture is never justifiable. It is always wrong. In Quade's example, no, I don't torture them. Even if they are caught "red handed". Two basic beliefs that this country was based on are no cruel and unusual punishment and innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers. These things can not be applied selectively or they lose their value and we as a nation lose the right to say we stand for life, liberty, or justice.

Although 9/11 was a horrible and frightening tragedy, it was statistically insignificant as far as being a cause of death. We could reduce the number of deaths in this country by lowering speed limits or banning smoking. But we as a nation think those actions would infringe on our freedom, but don't blink an eye when it comes to torture.

I'm sure everyone saying that it is ok or justified has the opinion that they would never be viewed as a terrorist so don't have anything to worry about. But remember, there may be some group out there that thinks torture is justified against a group of people that you could categorically belong to. Unless we state, and back up with our actions the beliefs that this country was founded on and for, we're no better than a group of terrorists ourselves.

[ladyskydiver 0]

I got 5 out of 5.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

We could reduce the number of deaths in this country by lowering speed limits or banning smoking

I'm not sure that would work. Between having to drive slower and the lack of nicotine most people would be far more prone to spontaneous violence.

[Tonto 1]

As a South African aware of what was going on during the Apartheid system... its always wrong. Go over to the dark side if you wish, but I feel you're losing the battle for the moral high ground already...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[jraf 0]

there is never anything wrong with public floggings of naked women....i mean as long as they don't spoil the skin...

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

there is never anything wrong with public floggings of naked women....i mean as long as they don't spoil the skin...

Yeah...just make it a little red and irritated....ya know...how they like it.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Now....I guess some could argue that sleep deprivation and some of the other techniques are "torture" but I wouldn't classify it as that.

You mean like in Waco? The FBI keeping huge loud-speakers blaring white noise for days on end?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

You mean like in Waco? The FBI keeping huge loud-speakers blaring white noise for days on end?

Yep...I would classify that more in the psychological warfare arena than I would torture.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

There's really no need to torture anyone. With modern interrogation techniques and the ability to pretty much keep them forever they will be singing like birds eventually.

Following the "depends on how you define torture" tangent, would the use of "chemical inducement" qualify as torture? I would really be shocked if we don't have chemical agents which would weaken a person's resistance to interrogation without causing any permanent physical or psychological side effects. Heck, an ideal agent would cause the person to have no memory whatsoever of what transpired during the interrogation. Would one consider that "torture"? I'm not sure I would.

And to answer Quade's hypothetical, as much as I abhor violence, I think it would be appropriate to use whatever means necessary to extract information from someone who you know is part of a plot to kill people if doing so would have a decent likelihood of saving innocent people's lives.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I would really be shocked if we don't have chemical agents which would weaken a person's resistance to interrogation without causing any permanent physical or psychological side effects. Heck, an ideal agent would cause the person to have no memory whatsoever of what transpired during the interrogation.

They have had that for years.....it's known by it's top secret acronym. "BEER" It can ocassionally cause clothing loss, liver damage, empty wallet syndrome, and pissed off wife condition though. So, I wouldn't exactly call it harmless.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And to answer Quade's hypothetical, as much as I abhor violence, I think it would be appropriate to use whatever means necessary to extract information from someone who you know is part of a plot to kill people if doing so would have a decent likelihood of saving innocent people's lives.

There are people in this country that believe that they KNOW that blacks and jews are conspiring against them to do them harm. So would it be alright for them to use torture against them?

Once you say something is ok to do and then limit it to a specific set of circumstances, there will always be those who can fit anything into those circustances to justify their actions. The only way to prevent this kind of abuse of power and violations of basic decency is to NEVER allow this kind of inhumane treatment to be perpetrated by anyone, against anyone.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

There are people in this country that believe that they KNOW that blacks and jews are conspiring against them to do them harm

Certainly they are...well...Jews are if you're in the mall buying something....and blacks are if you're a white guy anywhere on MLK BLVD in Atlanta after dark....


PS...Joking folks...only joking....put down the pitchforks and torches...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Jews are if your in the mall buying something

If your what is in the mall buying something?

[seedy 0]

Quote

There are people in this country that believe that they KNOW that blacks and jews are conspiring against them to do them harm. So would it be alright for them to use torture against them?

I think in Quade's scenario, the perpetrator was caught in the act. As much as I abhor the thought of torture, I can't really say what I would do if I thought hundreds or thousands of lives depended on the outcome. Again, not a suspect, but someone caught in the act. Dunno, hard question.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[freefallfreak 0]

Uhh, 3 0f 5...does this mean I'm crazy and love violence or just uninformed?? (geez, this may be the wrong place to ask that...lol.)

FFF

"Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think in Quade's scenario, the perpetrator was caught in the act.

Kind of like those Arab medical students that everyone thought was on their way to Miami to bomb it but turns out they were going to a medical convention? At the time everyone involved they had caught some terrorists in the act. And lets not forget the Olympic bombing and the mess that made of Richard Jewell's life. Guess he should have been tortured too?

[seedy 0]

Quote

Kind of like those Arab medical students that everyone thought was on their way to Miami to bomb it but turns out they were going to a medical convention? At the time everyone involved they had caught some terrorists in the act. And lets not forget the Olympic bombing and the mess that made of Richard Jewell's life. Guess he should have been tortured too?

Nope, don't mean like that at all. I mean like someone parking a truck in front of a federal building and it is loaded with enough explosives to blast a 50 foot crater and he is trying to set the timer. Caught in the act like that. Those you used for illustration were suspects and I don't agree with that. As I said, hard question.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Once you say something is ok to do and then limit it to a specific set of circumstances, there will always be those who can fit anything into those circustances to justify their actions.

Absolutely, but I'm going strictly on Quade's hypothetical, in which there is no uncertainty.... that is part of the hypothetical.

No as far as practical application goes, you bring up very valid points. It would be extremely difficult to come up with a scenario in which one would be certain that they have a perpetrator who has information necessary to extract.

As a practical matter, I think we need to err on the side of caution. I would rather have a policy of no torture if there exists a risk that an innocent person may be mistakenly tortured than the converse.

That's the nice thing (and problem) abouot hypotheticals.... you define the parameters and they are clear-cut. Life is rarely that way.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[quade 4]

Oh, I didn't say the person actually -had- information. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated in a follow-up that he may or may not.

The correct answer to all of this is . . . there is no correct answer.

Even if you caught a guy redhanded as in my hypothetical, there's know way of knowing whether he has useful information or not.

You can either torture him or not.
He either has useful information or not.
He will either give you the truth or lie in an effort to stop you.

If you torture him and he turns over useful information, then you'll justify your actions as saving innocent lives.

If you torture him and he gives you false information then it was a pointless excercise and you maybe even fell into a larger trap.

If you don't torture him and he actually did have useful information you'll never forgive yourself.

If you don't torture him and he didn't have useful information ONLY then do you win a moral victory -- BUT you'll never know for certain.

Basically, the entire question sucks. I'm glad I don't have to answer it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ramon 0]

Most of us don't remember the "red" scare.

And the Special forces (all inclusive not just Army) use "presuasive" techniques anyway.

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I would really be shocked if we don't have chemical agents which would weaken a person's resistance to interrogation without causing any permanent physical or psychological side effects.

I tuned in the radio to a news show once about this. They do have something like this, I don't know what its called, but a "truth serum" has been used for years. I put it in quotes because it doesn't really MAKE you tell the truth. There's nothing really mysterious about it actually. It's a mild narcotic that makes you less likely to stand up to questioning & more likely to let something slip out. They compared it to how sometimes when someone's drunk they might blurt something out that they would normally have kept secret.

On this radio interview the interviewer asked, "aren't you worried that if the enemy captures an American agent, that they might use this same serum against him?" The guy laughed and said, "we should only be so lucky!" meaning that our enemies would probably use MUCH crueler techniques to obtain info than just administering a mild narcotic.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rawgum 0]

yes