Torture/Interrogation

In my class, we had this huge discussion whether torture for interrogation of prisoners was right or wrong. My opinion was that if it was for the protection of the country and thus, being necessary, then it should be allowed. What do you guys think?

The question is moot. torture is unreliable as a means of extracting information. the subject will say what ever the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop.

Torture is an ineffective method to get information, since it forced the person being tortured to say anything that would stop him/her being tortured.

For all you know, he gave you information to a McDonalds in Iraq rather than where Bin Laden is hiding.

That's not really true, Mr. Shaggnificent. The people performing the torture/interrogation will likely check what the interrogee is saying against other information, determine the plausibility or legitimacy, and then act accordingly whether the information extracted was true or false. At least that seems like the most probable course of action in such a situation. What you're saying may apply to smaller situations, where the torturers/interrogators have no way of checking the legitimacy, but I imagine common sense will be effective in those smaller scale situations. If the information extracted is absurd, then what do you think will happen? The torture will continue until the interrogee has been broken and tells their interrogators the truth. If that doesn't happen, well, I guess they have to find another way to gather the information they are looking for.

There is no way we can really say whether or not torture is justified. Let's say the FBI captures a person with confirmed links to the upper echelon of a fringe nationalist group planning an attack in the continental United States of America. Is the depravity of the torture/interrogation being used justified by the lives saved by preventing the attack planned by the aforementioned fringe nationalist group? Were we living in a perfect world, the answer would be no. Wrong would always be wrong, and right would always be right. But that's not the world we live in. We live in shades of grey. The world is a terrible place, and the fact that anyone has to extract information concerning a plan to kill thousands of people is terrible. I would have to say that it would be worth it if lives were saved. It's not honorable, pleasant, or self-satisfying work(Well, it is if you're a sadist), but I suppose it has to be done in the rare situations that demand such extreme actions be taken. It's not right by any stretch, but what would you do? Not capture and interrogate someone that has the information needed to successfully prevent actions taken by the aforementioned fringe nationalist group that would result in massive loss of human life? Would you keep to your morals despite the fact that hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives are at stake?

The latter seems to be the greater of two evils, and also ignorant and a childish view of the world we live in. I would rather not be able to sleep soundly at night than to know I could have prevented people from being senselessly killed and not done anything to stop it for the sake of morality.

Del, you make Dick Cheney proud...
...Habeas Corpus.

That's so nice of you to say, thanks so much! D:

Out of the people America tortured there was a fair amount that was actually innocent,
instead of them getting released the got to Guantanamo with actual terrorists, with that being said...

Physics 101: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
1.Torture equals more hate towards America.
2.equals more people actual wanting to harm America.
3.equals acts of terrorism.
4.equals using torture as a mean of interrogation.
5. Go to 1.

Also HABEAS CORPUS!

it is justified..but I wouldn´t trust the info you get from them

Morally, torture is not right, or at least that is what i believe. Why go around hurting people? Simply because you are too lazy and incompetent to gather the necessary information yourself? Please.
And overall it won't get you anywhere except if you are some kind of sadist. Prisoner gets hurt, he gives you what you want to make you stop.

I think it's a terrible thing to do.
A lot of the time, people stay quiet to protect others rather than just having the information.
Although i can't honestly propose a better way to get information from a prisoner.

So, in order for torture to work:

1) You have to torture a _lot_ of people
2) you have to torture a lot of people _until_ they give you something believable. So, if they don't actually know anything, they're screwed even more.
3) You already have to have the ability to confirm if the information is true... in which case you really don't need the information from the person and just skip the torture and check

Nice.






Why torture is wrong:

1) It is morally reprehensible. This should be fucking enough. But since people have no problems with breaking morals:

2) When people are tortured, they will eventually say anything for it to stop. If you're saying, "well,I'Il know if it is right" then you don't need to torture anybody in the first place.

3) What, no mention of torture actually creating more problems than it seolves? Let me put it this way, if you have proof that [insert terrorist group] tortured americans civilians, wouldn't that make more americans want to defend their country, or would it make americans fear [terrorist group]?

Now, imagine it going the other way around. The entire escapade with the abuses at Guantanamo probably created more terrorists than it actually holds.

4) The best way to get information? Get someone to defect, Torture does the exact opposite of making someone want to defect.

There's a possibility you could get someone to defect, but I imagine groups that are serious about causing harm to others cultivate fanatical devotion to the group's ideology in it's members. It would be as ineffective as torture would be in that situation. I like the idea of getting someone to defect over torture, yet I remain strong in my stance that it may very well be necessary in situations that demand such extreme actions.

We're getting our panties in a twist over torture, how would you feel about killing someone as a last resort if they were going to cause a massive loss of human life. What would you say about that situation? Is that immoral too? Our world isn't so black and white, folks. Would you do what it takes to ensure that a greater evil does not come to fruition?

On a side note, the horrible actions taken by intelligence agencies in Guantanamo Bay are reprehensible. The worst part of it is that some of the prisoners were uninvolved in any sort of "terrorist attack", attacks on US/UK/Coalition forces abroad, or plans to come either of the former. That's the biggest issue I had with Guantanamo Bay. They were "suspected" of being involved in some way. They could have easily determined whether or not someone was apart of such actions or planning by simple observation, but they didn't care enough. That is what was fundamentally wrong with Guantanamo Bay.

YES. A million times yes. And if you have to ask why the answer is yes (or insist that the answer is no), then you wouldn't understand the answer.

And to head of "so, you'd rather have a million people die?"
False dichotomy

You are irrefutably inhuman then, fatman. To let hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people die for the sake of your morals is more monstrous than torturing or killing someone to prevent such a massive loss of life ever could be. What will you say to those that lost their loved ones because you didn't have the nerve to do what was necessary? "I'm sorry, but would they have wanted their lives tarnished by the death of the person that would have killed them?". Are you fucking serious?

*facepalm*

Wow... that's at least three doses of logical fallacy. Four with the false dichotomy.

straw man
Appeal to emotion
Straw man

You're copping out of answering me, and I'm fine with that. You can babble all you want about false dichotomies and logical fallacies, but the fact remains that interrogation, and torture for that matter are sometimes necessary. I know it's wrong to torture someone. I said as much in my original post. However, is it necessary at times? I believe it is.



Thanks for pointing those out, fatman. It's a shame you spent your time looking up those Wikipedia articles instead of contributing more than a pro's and con's list for torture to this discussion. Also, I have a feeling that you are ruling out the situations in which torture/harsh interrogation is absolutely necessary and all other options have been ruled out.

Torture is unreliable. Period.

The FBI doesn't use torture.
The CIA doesn't use torture.
The NSA doesn't use torture.

...because they all know this.

It's only Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and their cronies who do.

Since the secret services weren't willing to compromise their *professional* integrity (trust me, these guys *would* shoot their mother if it protected Uncle Sam's interest, they'd have *NO MORAL QUALMS* about torture) by delivering false intel (WMDs in Iraq? Al-Queda in Iraq? Nope.) they turned to the military brass and told them: Get me the Intel I *want*, ou your ass is grass.

...so the brass did what they always do when faced with a problem:

They threw some soldiers at it!

Soldiers with *NO*, or just *days of* intel & interrogation training. So you have all these boys and girls with little training, lots of pressure from above to perform and get result, and *GET THEM NOW* and no control, no moral restraints.

...of course they went astray, especially when their higher ups commended them for crossing the line.

Now this is what I wanted! Good job, sir. Bush & Cheney were indeed assholes. I believe the whole world with exception to a few hundred thousand misguided souls believe what you said to be true. I know I think that about their years in office.

You're not getting it. Once the torture starts you can no longer tell whether the subject is telling the truth or making stuff up. He will tell you everything... that's fine. What makes the method useless is that he will tell you *more*. Whatever comes to mind, whatever he think of to stop the pain.

Once again: torture as a form of interrogation is unreliable.

Get it into your thick skulls. Even the GRU, the STAZI, the KGB didn't use torture to extract information. They used it to break people's wills, to "re-educate" them, to make them admit to whatever crimes their conception trial required.

The most often quoted reason in favor of torture is that sometimes we need the intel right now... well torture won't help with that. It will even contaminate the suspect. The human mind has a great capability to manufacture delusions, and given enough abuse a subject will start to genuinely believe in things that never happened.

So get it into your thick skulls: Torture as a form of interrogation DOESN'T WORK.

Its been proven by the Babylonians 3000 years ago that a nice guy treatment is many times more effective than torture.