Is torture ever justified?

If the suspect is in on the plot, sure.

Yes of course…put him a room with my MIL and he will tell you everything you need to know. Inhumane but effective.

I honestly don’t know much about torture, as I haven’t researched it. I don’t know if it works statistically or if it doesn’t. I do know that I would be more likely to give up info if I was threatened with torture or actually tortured, but I’m a pansy. It also depends how brainwashed I am by the cause and what type of info I have.

Like I said in this similar thread…

My general formula for evaluating truth serums, torture, etc. is the following…
If you must create a hypothetical scenario like the one presented, it’s a bad idea.

I mean, if it were proven, then I suppose.
However, to the best of my knowledge, the evidence points to the contrary. I was under the impression that it has been shown to be ineffective.. and can lead to a suspect giving faulty information, or blatantly lying to tell you what you want to hear, just to save themselves from suffering further. So realistically, no.

Also, @sarahhhhh: “The authorities know that if they torture him he will give up the information (let’s assume this fact is a given) ”

What kind of fantasy is this?

The reason I said that we should assume as fact that he would give up the information is so we can discuss beyond the actual effectiveness of torture.

@tom_g fantasy?? The parameter set has a reason I just explained above.

Yep.

If causing significant physical discomfort to an individual who has a known goal of killing as many innocent bystanders as possible in the most horrific way possible as a part of his/her “war” on my country, freedom, or general way of life, and there is a reasonable possibility that said discomfort will yield information that can be used to prevent an attach or disrupt the organization that makes such attacks possible, I have but one thing to say:

“Hand me that bucket of water….”

For the confines of your hypothetical situation, yes.

@sarahhhhh but this is almost a trick question, the way you have it laid out.
If you have to propose an imaginary scenario (which is likely the opposite of reality) in order to even make the possibility that “yes” would be an acceptable answer, then the answer really is “no.”

The big thing that is often overlooked with torture (at least as it is discussed in the last 5 or so years)... is that “torture” like tearing fingernails off and chinese water torture…. doesn’t work. If you torture someone long enough, they’ll tell you exactly what you want to hear, even if it isn’t true.

That’s why you had professionals at the CIA calling out the Bush administrations torture policy on terrorist prisoners…. Not because they didn’t think torture was justified, but because they knew the info you got from it was questionable at best.

Torture is really only best used to promote fear and compliance. Take a look at what’s happening in Syria right now. The gov’t is torturing, killing, and releasing the bodies of protesters so the word can get out what happens when you protest. This is enraging some into more resolve than ever, but also scaring the shit out of others.

The Syrian gov’t sucks.

@ANef_is_Enuf the reason this scenario is laid out as it is: people usually end the argument against torture on its effectiveness. No to torture because it doesn’t always give results. But what if it DOES give results… Should we consider the other factors such as a persons right to their own body? Shouldn’t he simply be dealt with as under the law (prison) instead of being tortured. Does his inclusion in such a plan give us a right to torture him? I wanted points of view different from what I kept reading everywhere hence the limitation.

@cockswain many governments going through unrest/rebellions do that unfortunately.

@sarahhhhh okay, I see what you’re saying.

I see what you’re saying here now. Would torture be justified if torture worked, and we were omniscient, etc? I’m not entirely sure how to answer that question. I will instead answer the following: Would torture be justified in a world in which elephants flew around on magic carpets? I will still go with “no”.

@sarahhhhh, the situation you describe is not likely except on silly television shows. And as others have pointed out, you have to keep on adding conditions to your hypothetical to make it remotely justified, i.e. “what if torture really did produce results?”

@tom_g I can’t tell if your answer is sarcastic.

@Qingu does it matter if it’s likely?? It’s for the sake of argument.

Of course it matters if it’s likely. Our morals should be based on the real world we have to deal with and experience, not made-up hypothetical scenarios that never happen.

@Qingu
Yes these things do happen. People suspected of being involved in criminal activities and planned terrorist attacks are apprehended very often and taken into custody for questioning and interrogation (Guantanamo?).

Also it’s of course your own choice if you never want to consider a hypothetical question or discuss something that probably is a possibility. But I don’t think you speak for many people. Our morals and opinions are constantly shaped by what we think “could’ happen. Did you come to this question just to tell me you couldn’t answer it? Noted.

Problem is, under torture, anyone will say anything you want to hear, which isn’t necessarily the truth

Paedophile + Blow torch + Pair of pliers = Justification….....& on that bombshell!

@sarahhhhh, that’s simply false. Nobody in Guantanamo had knowledge of any imminent terrorist plot. The “ticking time bomb” scenario has never existed.

Now, maybe you’d like to argue that we capture Taliban or AQ soldiers and we think they might know about some future military operation by their comrades that could endanger our troops. So you could ask whether or not we should torture them. The answer would also extend to whether or not we should torture any enemy POWs who might know operational details. The question has been answered by the Geneva convention, in my opinion. Your answer would also apply to US soldiers who are captured by our enemies; if you answer “yes” it’s okay for enemies to torture our troops.

@Qingu you see the videos? They do it anyway, and then some

What videos, the decapitations? That’s not torture, that’s just execution. I’m sure some of our soldiers do get tortured though.

@Qingu the scenario you typed is what I am wrote in my question I don’t see the point of whether it is the Taliban, AQ or the Backstreet Boys. Even the fact that it’s a terrorist plot is not very relevant as I only meant to say that it’s a situation where people’s lives are in danger.

And yes we know now that we didn’t get info from GB that we were hoping to however my point with that reference was that people to get stuck in cells for the purpose to which I was alluding to in my question, ie it’s not a an unlikely situation. It’s been happening all over the world.

@sarahhhhh, no it’s not. You wrote:

“information about a planned terrorist attack which will kill hundreds of thousands.”

You were not talking about an attack on military personnel or even something like an IED attack against what the Taliban perceives to be civilian collaborators.

You were talking about a completely fictional scenario for which we have never captured anyone who knows anything like on such a scale.

If you’d like to re-ask your question to state “Should we torture enemy combatants if they might know about future attacks or ambushes on our military,” feel free. And I hope your answer would be “fuck no.”

No. The person in question might not know and is just saying so. He might know and will never tell even if tortured since you can’t assume that as a given. You can’t predict an outcome of torture. As well, the outcome might be that he does give up false information and attack takes place nonetheless.

Justifiable, no. Would I condone it’s use in certain situations? Yes.

Nope. Justification not needed.

@Qingu there are torture videos followed by decapitation. It’s quite cruel really, Al Qaeda promising this or that if the soldier converts or spills the beans

Justified? No. Fun? Maybe.

As was already said in here, I’ve heard that torture is extremely ineffective. However, if the person really does know, they’d probably tell the truth. So torture one person to save several, go for it. I feel kinda icky saying that though lol.

The key element is if they “know that if they torture him he will give up the information (let’s assume this fact is a given) and they will get to save many many lives.”
If they know that, they would be negligent for not using torture.
The debate is whether or not it actually works, and so should we use an unpleasant and ineffective method for getting life saving information.
But if you know it works, you have to do it.
Who could argue that, in the circumstance you described?

That’s sorta what I was trying to say lol.

@josie and @Symbeline, do you think we should waterboard Taliban soldiers we capture in order to get them to tell us the names of their comrades or the location of an IED?

Similarly, do you think the Japanese were justified in waterboarding our soldiers they captured during World War II, presuming that it yielded useful military information?

@Qingu Nope. Because in those cases, there is/was never any way to know for sure if they knew or not. But according to this question, somehow, we are to assume that we know 100% that the person has the information needed.

@Qingu Waterboarding is effective and leaves the subject uninjured, so the answer is yes.
Regarding war-War is shitty Once you are committed, you don’t have too many choices but to do what ever you can think of to survive it.You probably would not have the stomach for it, so don’t worry about it.
And thats all I have to say about that.

Here is a practical reason why we should not torture, even in this ridiculous hypothetical where torture is magically more effective than normal interrogation techniques and we have perfect knowledge: there are certain lines you do not cross in warfare, because you don’t want the other side crossing them.

One of those lines is mass-killing civilians. We could probably kill a lot more of the Taliban and bring Afghanistan to its knees if we simply carpet-bombed Kandahar and Marja until Mullah Omar unconditionally surrendered. But then the Taliban would be just as justified targeting American civilians instead of our soldiers. The reason we don’t mass-murder civilians to achieve short-term aims is because it lead to a deadly game in the long-term. It also robs us of moral superiority in calling out Al-Qaeda in the eyes of the international community.

Torture is the same way. The Geneva Convention outlaws it. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded our soldiers in World War II and tried them for war crimes. “War is hell,” but that doesn’t mean that civilized people should have no boundaries in how they fight wars. Even if it means saving a few lives potentially in finding an IED or identifying a Talib assassin. It’s not worth lowering ourselves for; there is more at stake in the long-term.

One of the biggest reasons we were in serious danger of “losing” the Iraq War is because of Abu Ghraib. Things were actually going fairly well up until that point. Afterwards? We start seeing militia kidnapping videos where the victims are dressed up in the same jumpsuits as the people we tortured in Abu Ghraib.

Good point, but you can’t expect me to have figured that from a hypothetical scenario. I myself am guessing that were I to actually be found in such a scenario for real, I may not say what I have now. But until, and if, I have further experience, I don’t know of any other answer.
I think I see what you mean though. Fuck someone up in some atrocious way, and if they get a chance, they’ll do the same or worse, and it just won’t end. Something like that?

There are lows that you don’t stoop to, even in warfare, because it’s strategically important not to incite the other side to stoop to those lows (and to maintain moral superiority in the eyes of the world if and when they do).

Beyond the fact that torture is ineffective and abhorent in its own right.

I’ve read many times that torture is a poor way to advance, as far as war goes. But do people not stoop to those to get an advantage (or prevent the other side from getting one) or because they really do think it’s disgusting? I often get confused about how war actually has rules. :/ It seems so…bizarre, considering what war is.

Anyways, I’m not saying torture is awesome. Or if I am, I’m only saying as such because I’m aware that such a situation is not realistic. As I say, I’d sing a different tune, if I found myself in there. Or so I imagine, anyways. Ain’t ever been to war, so I can’t really say.

@Symbeline I know you’re not, I can tell you’re ambivalent about it at best in the most extreme of circumstances. There are hypothetical situations where I would say torture is the lesser of two evils too; I just don’t think those situations exist in the real world so this question tends to get muddled with excuses for real-world torture.

I saw real live footage of Unity 731 experiments on the Internet before (more than close enough to torture, even if the reasons totally differ from this) and I got sick after 15 minutes lol. I wouldn’t wish any of that shit on my worse enemy, but then I get all confused in between one VS several. So I dun fuckin know, and good thing I’ll never have to, in respect to this question.

Uhh, if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have some solid information, sure. I’m not all pro-torture, but I’m not anti-torture, either. It’s one of those unfortunate situations where you have to hold out and cross your fingers that the end will justify the means. Until we develop truth serum.

@Joker94, what do you mean by “some solid information”?

Are we talking about the completely fictional ticking time bomb scenario where there are thousands of civilian lives at stake?

Or are we talking about the real-world scenario where the POW knows the location of an IED that might kill a several troops or civilians? (Or, similarly, a POW who knows the scheduled time and location of a NATO airstrike?)

@Qingu The more realistic approach. It’s a horrible thing to do, no doubt, but in a situation where there are numerous lives at stake, I think the potential victim’s safety outweigh the POW’s.

@Qingu
If you actually think people are not being caught and interrogated for possible involvment in terrorist plots then you really need to start reading the news.

As for this statement of yours: even in this ridiculous hypothetical where torture is magically more effective than normal interrogation techniques and we have perfect knowledge
I have explained atleast three times the reason to this specific hypothesis. I think you have still failed to undertand the actual question. And no, I would not like to rephrase my question simply because you fail to understand it.

@sarahhhhh, read more closely. I haven’t denied they’ve been caught for “terrorist plots” (and you can certainly class laying IEDs in civilian areas as “terrorism” if you like.)

I denied they’ve been caught for terrorist plots where “hundreds of thousands” of lives are at stake. That was the premise of your question, remember?

@Joker94, so if a Taliban fighter tortures an American soldier to get the time and location of an airstrike, that’s also acceptable to you? Just doing what needs to be done to save his comrade’s lives?