Is torture justified?

#1
Just been watching Nicky Campbell on BBC1. The show is dicussing whether or not torture is justified. He asked a guest on his panel, Cristina Odone, if she hought it was acceptable in certain caese and she said an outright no. Then he said that if that had been the case then 6 airliners would have been blown up with an exorbitant loss of life. Good old Colonel Bob (Stewart) is advocating its use in ceratin cases and makes a good case for its.

What do you think bearing in mind that you may or may not be able to save the lives of many people from any information extracted?
 
#2
We need to get away from calling it Torture and give a more PC description. Something like "arduous interrogation".



SK
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
torture for tortures sake or becuase the recipient is a journalist you're not pleased with (for example) - no. however, in the case nicky campbell mentions, it's a bit hard to justify *not* torturing if it gets you the information you need. several hundred innocent people's lives versus the fingernails of one scumbag - the scumbag's getting it, IMO.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
SKJOLD said:
We need to get away from calling it Torture and give a more PC description. Something like "arduous interrogation".



SK
'interrogation for the truthfully challenged' perhaps?
 
#5
A better question would perhaps have been 'does torture work'? Terrorists use cell and compartmentalisation of information, to make information obtained time critical, therefore out and out torture to stop a operation is unlikely make a difference.

Resistance to interrogation techniques, are no doubt used by some players. In me opinion using torture or the implication that 'we' support torture techniques gives an enemy positive propaganda.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
Just been watching Nicky Campbell on BBC1. The show is dicussing whether or not torture is justified. He asked a guest on his panel, Cristina Odone, if she hought it was acceptable in certain caese and she said an outright no. Then he said that if that had been the case then 6 airliners would have been blown up with an exorbitant loss of life. Good old Colonel Bob (Stewart) is advocating its use in ceratin cases and makes a good case for its.

What do you think bearing in mind that you may or may not be able to save the lives of many people from any information extracted?
No. Torture is never justified and it's use is repugnant.
 
#7
maguire said:
SKJOLD said:
We need to get away from calling it Torture and give a more PC description. Something like "arduous interrogation".



SK
'interrogation for the truthfully challenged' perhaps?
How about "rigorous physical questioning"?
In my book the ends justifies the means, take no notice of this 'it makes us no better than them' argument - holding the moral high ground isn't going to keep people alive, is it?
 
#8
Fcuk that - did you see the tranny with the jawline like David Cooulthard ! :D
 
#9
the_guru said:
Fcuk that - did you see the tranny with the jawline like David Cooulthard ! :D
And the voice to match. THAT is reason enough why torture is justified . Fcuking Freak.
 
#10
FBC - What do you think bearing in mind that you may or may not be able to save the lives of many people from any information extracted?

We have seen from the 'gitmo stuff that association with torture is counter-productive. Use it on Terrorist A and it gets out and all the bleeding hearts will allege you used it on Terrorists B,C,D etc ad infinitum whether that be the case or not and dealing with B,C,D in a legal manner is compromised.

There is no guarantee that the product of torture is true. Given time, it is possible to come to a 'true' or 'false' conclusion by comparing with other sources but the 'save a plane in flight' by torture scenario really only works in 24.

All that said, there is a place for torture so long as it is non-attributable. Torture does not have to be thumbscrews and water-boards. Torture of a child or wife in presence of parent/husband can be very effective. Kill them immediately they have broken and no one knows it happened.

So, it can be effective over time. Terrorists do not have any rules of the game - why should we? Problem is living with yourself knowing what your operatives do in dark cellers. Once started, where does it stop? Without complicating it too much, take the case of Blair. He chose short cuts outside the ethics of his position and look where we are now when it comes to trusting any of our politicians.
 
#11
Don't think the other side would have that many problems with it so its fair game I say.
 
#12
Prince_Rupert said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
Just been watching Nicky Campbell on BBC1. The show is dicussing whether or not torture is justified. He asked a guest on his panel, Cristina Odone, if she hought it was acceptable in certain caese and she said an outright no. Then he said that if that had been the case then 6 airliners would have been blown up with an exorbitant loss of life. Good old Colonel Bob (Stewart) is advocating its use in ceratin cases and makes a good case for its.

What do you think bearing in mind that you may or may not be able to save the lives of many people from any information extracted?

No. Torture is never justified and it's use is repugnant.


So a member of your family say a child has been kidnapped by a bunch of of paedos. You have found one of those paedos. To find that child you have to get inforamtion form the paedo. I guess from your answer that the child doesnt have much of a chance as you say torture is never justified. How about if you're aware of a major terrorist attack that has taken place with massive loss of life? Had the intelligence services been aware of that attack in advance through torure and they hadnt prevented it because their methods arent justified would you stand up and support them when the critics come out of the woodwork? What if they had prevented it would you condemn them because of how they got it? What if they had saved your life? Bet you would be happy for them to have used torture.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
Prince_Rupert said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
Just been watching Nicky Campbell on BBC1. The show is dicussing whether or not torture is justified. He asked a guest on his panel, Cristina Odone, if she hought it was acceptable in certain caese and she said an outright no. Then he said that if that had been the case then 6 airliners would have been blown up with an exorbitant loss of life. Good old Colonel Bob (Stewart) is advocating its use in ceratin cases and makes a good case for its.

What do you think bearing in mind that you may or may not be able to save the lives of many people from any information extracted?

No. Torture is never justified and it's use is repugnant.


So a member of your family say a child has been kidnapped by a bunch of of paedos. You have found one of those paedos. To find that child you have to get inforamtion form the paedo. I guess from your answer that the child doesnt have much of a chance as you say torture is never justified. How about if you're aware of a major terrorist attack that has taken place with massive loss of life? Had the intelligence services been aware of that attack in advance through torure and they hadnt prevented it because their methods arent justified would you stand up and support them when the critics come out of the woodwork? What if they had prevented it would you condemn them because of how they got it? What if they had saved your life? Bet you would be happy for them to have used torture.

No I wouldn't be happy. I'm a human and consequently decry the use of torture in any and all circumstances. That's what makes us better than others.
 
#15
Old Red Cap. I believe that torture is fully justified if it means that lives can be saved. If my family have been kidnapped then I would fully support any means used to ensure my family's survival. I even go so far as to say that I would think that I would be the one trying extract that information as regards my family. I don't condone the ritual use of torture that is so prevalent in places, like China, where it used purely for perverse reasons such as to control freedom of speech. If it is used as a way of controlling people who wish to have a better quality of life then that is of course totally unacceptable.
 
#16
Depends on what constitutes "torture"

At one end we have red hot pokers, thumbscrews and the rack - at the other end we're told that raising your voice and not letting someone have a cigarette for three hours is torture.

Personally, I think that anything which causes stress without physical harm is fair game - stress positioning, sensory stimulus, sleep deprivation, robust questioning etc - once it transcends over into beatings and real fear of serious harm then its not acceptable, on that basis I would guess waterboarding would be borderline, but the real fear and sensation of drowning is probably a step too far. (still not entirely convinced on that one, i suppose it would depend on the information likely to be gleaned - imminent nuc/bio attack, clearly yes - name of someone's cell controller, probably not)
 
#17
Interrogation to gain information that could save lives is justified.
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#18
CraftyJay said:
Don't think the other side would have that many problems with it so its fair game I say.
And herein lies the major stumbling block in most peoples reasoning. The Taliban and AQ are barbaric therefore we can also be barbaric. What happens when we fight with a more modern enemy, it will obviously be fine for them to torture our troops when captured because we also do it? If torture is acceptable why were (or are) we concerned that the Taliban wouldn't allow girls to be educated? Which is more an affront to human dignity? Who will be tortured, only "johnny foreigner" or is the innocent (as he is not convicted of any offence) but suspected man from Bradford fair game? If we, living in a modern, democratic and generally humane society condone torture "because they do it" are they any worse killing hundreds of innocents because we (the coalition) have undeniably done so in pursuit of our goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

IMD
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Define torture

A recent report I saw stated that the Mumbai terrorist was torured by a female agent commiting a sex act on him
Is a blow job torture? she would need an armed guard to drag half of this site off her for seconds
Half the claims against prisons are about breach off human rights is that torure because the beds not comfy?

I couldn't give a fukc if some bloke get's a kicking to extract information from him
Funny how jihad and self sacrifice suddenly loses it's attraction when a couple of US Marines are dancing on your head

No matter what we do I'm pretty certain the other side have a nastier varient off it so maybe we should get down and fight dirty against them
 
#20
the_boy_syrup said:
A recent report I saw stated that the Mumbai terrorist was torured by a female agent commiting a sex act on him
"You'll never get me to talk, never, I would rather die... what are you doing... ohh... uhhhhhh... ahhh... the safe house where everyone else is hiding is at 1278 Calcutta Street... ahhhhhhhh...I can tell you more but you'll have to give me 10 minutes to refill..."
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top