Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:49 PM

Of course, but the criminal would probably see it as being "wronged", regardless of how much they deserved it.

The criminal might, obviously. But the criminal's "wrong" is outweighed by society's "right" in this case. I claim it's not in the case of torture. The wrong caused to the person being tortured is greater than the potential "right" that may result (and, as was said above, the potential "right" is limited by the questionable effectiveness of torture as an interrogation tool). Further, I claim society as a whole is wronged by the stain of sanctioned torture. As I said, most of the world has agreed with that view for the last couple of hundred years. Re-introducing torture as "just" in some cases is a step backwards in the slow but steady process of civilization.

Read up on the torture of people during the Inquisition sometimes. There comes a point in torture when the subject will agree to anything just to end the torture, even knowing that he or she will die as a result.

dk · 03-10-2003, 01:58 PM

I�m not sure the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad justifies torture, but I think torture can be justified. Suppose a terrorist hid and armed an atomic bomb somewhere in NYC, and was captured leaving the city. The scales of justice tilt heavily in favor of a 100,000 good people facing eminent death and against the human rights of one terrorist. I would challenge anyone to argue this hypothetical. I don't think people have come to grips with the horror terrorism presents the world.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:59 PM

Right. Those that enforce the laws must be above the law, or else they would be just as guilty. It's one of the great ironies of society.

Police aren't "above the law", so it's not exactly much of an irony.

Police are permitted, through their contract with society, to disregard certain laws (but definitely not all laws) only in certain situations in the line of duty. As in speeding to catch a speeder. The policeman, however, is not breaking the law in that case. Indeed, the law charges the policeman with the duty to, for example, speed in the pursuit of a lawbreaker in certain situations, and within certain limits. The policeman is not breaking the law, but is performing his or her duty of enforcing the law, as prescribed by that very law. One might say that if the policeman refused to speed at any time to catch a crook, the policeman may well be "breaking" the law.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 02:06 PM

I�m not sure the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad justifies torture, but I think torture can be justified. Suppose a terrorist hid and armed an atomic bomb somewhere in NYC, and was captured leaving the city.

Minor point, perhaps, but how would you know this guy hid a bomb?

The scales of justice tilt heavily in favor of a 100,000 good people facing eminent death and against the human rights of one terrorist. I would challenge anyone to argue this hypothetical. I don't think people have come to grips with the horror terrorism presents the world.

Your hypothetical hinges on the likelihood that accurate information to stop the bomb could be gathered by torturing the suspect. Torture does not produce reliable results. Further, a "professional" terrorist is quite possibly a fanatic and an idealist with a "cause" (reducing the effectiveness of torture), and may well have been trained in resisting torture, as well as be williing to martyr him or herself. Our time would best be spent pursuing more reliable ways to save lives and/or find the bomb in time.

And I don't think people have come to grips with the horror torture presents the world.

dk · 03-10-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Right. Those that enforce the laws must be above the law, or else they would be just as guilty. It's one of the great ironies of society.

Police aren't "above the law", so it's not exactly much of an irony.

Police are permitted, through their contract with society, to disregard certain laws (snip).

I agree, but Police aren't permitted to disregard laws, they are authorized to follow police procedures and policy.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 02:11 PM

I agree, but Police aren't permitted to disregard laws, they are authorized to follow police procedures and policy.

Yeah, that sounds better than the way I said it. They're not disregarding the laws; it's that certain laws (e.g. speed limit) don't apply to the police in certain situations (as outlined by police procedures and policy). I think I covered it a bit better in the bit about performing their duty as prescribed by the law.

sweep · 03-10-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

I�m not sure the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad justifies torture, but I think torture can be justified. Suppose a terrorist hid and armed an atomic bomb somewhere in NYC, and was captured leaving the city. The scales of justice tilt heavily in favor of a 100,000 good people facing eminent death and against the human rights of one terrorist. I would challenge anyone to argue this hypothetical. I don't think people have come to grips with the horror terrorism presents the world.

(con)-science. Where is the con in science? In this case the end justifies the means.

'sorry, your baby died and we could have prevented it but you didn't vote for torture'

'your telling me it was that assholes fault? GIVE ME THE FUCKING ELECTRODES! YOU KILLED MY BAABEE!'

sorry

torture still happens, whether we like it or not. I don't like it but there isn't much more choice in our current climate. Torture is a private affair, but we don't mind it when it's on the telly ,which is a separate issue, even though I'm still interested in hearing other opinions if the thread should take this direction.

sweep · 03-10-2003, 02:17 PM

Your hypothetical hinges on the likelihood that accurate information to stop the bomb could be gathered by torturing the suspect. Torture does not produce reliable results. Further, a "professional" terrorist is quite possibly a fanatic and an idealist with a "cause" (reducing the effectiveness of torture), and may well have been trained in resisting torture, as well as be williing to martyr him or herself. Our time would best be spent pursuing more reliable ways to save lives and/or find the bomb in time.

this is a strong case AGAINST torture, I think.

still, convince me that interrogation is not necessary. Can anyone tell me, on the basis of catching a suspect 'red handed', how else we are to get info?

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 02:25 PM

(con)-science. Where is the con in science? In this case the end justifies the means.

What I see here, and from other posters, is an assumtion that torture usually or always produces the desired results. This is not the case, especially when dealing with a "professional" terrorist fighting for a "cause". The actual "ends" of torture in this case will seldom match the desired outcome. There's little to no chance that torture in this case would find the hypothetical bomb in time.

Say you suspected two people (one a terrorist who planted the bomb, and one who didn't, and has no knowledge of where the bomb actually is) and tortured them both to find the location of the bomb, eventually you would get a location from both subjects. That's the way torture works; eventually, the subject gives you what you want (but not necessarily correct information). However, the probability is high that in both cases, the location would be wrong. Both subject make up locations to stop the torture. Torture is, simply, not reliable (on top of being not moral).

Valmorian · 03-10-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
I suppose...so why don't they allow truth serums or lie detectors?

Because they are not reliable methods. So called 'truth serums' CAN have the effect of reducing the subject's willpower, but the results of interrogation under such methods are rediculously unreliable.

As for Lie Detectors, they're even LESS reliable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 01:49 PM	#21
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Of course, but the criminal would probably see it as being "wronged", regardless of how much they deserved it. The criminal might, obviously. But the criminal's "wrong" is outweighed by society's "right" in this case. I claim it's not in the case of torture. The wrong caused to the person being tortured is greater than the potential "right" that may result (and, as was said above, the potential "right" is limited by the questionable effectiveness of torture as an interrogation tool). Further, I claim society as a whole is wronged by the stain of sanctioned torture. As I said, most of the world has agreed with that view for the last couple of hundred years. Re-introducing torture as "just" in some cases is a step backwards in the slow but steady process of civilization. Read up on the torture of people during the Inquisition sometimes. There comes a point in torture when the subject will agree to anything just to end the torture, even knowing that he or she will die as a result.

03-10-2003, 01:58 PM	#22
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	I�m not sure the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad justifies torture, but I think torture can be justified. Suppose a terrorist hid and armed an atomic bomb somewhere in NYC, and was captured leaving the city. The scales of justice tilt heavily in favor of a 100,000 good people facing eminent death and against the human rights of one terrorist. I would challenge anyone to argue this hypothetical. I don't think people have come to grips with the horror terrorism presents the world.

03-10-2003, 01:59 PM	#23
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Right. Those that enforce the laws must be above the law, or else they would be just as guilty. It's one of the great ironies of society. Police aren't "above the law", so it's not exactly much of an irony. Police are permitted, through their contract with society, to disregard certain laws (but definitely not all laws) only in certain situations in the line of duty. As in speeding to catch a speeder. The policeman, however, is not breaking the law in that case. Indeed, the law charges the policeman with the duty to, for example, speed in the pursuit of a lawbreaker in certain situations, and within certain limits. The policeman is not breaking the law, but is performing his or her duty of enforcing the law, as prescribed by that very law. One might say that if the policeman refused to speed at any time to catch a crook, the policeman may well be "breaking" the law.

03-10-2003, 02:06 PM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I�m not sure the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad justifies torture, but I think torture can be justified. Suppose a terrorist hid and armed an atomic bomb somewhere in NYC, and was captured leaving the city. Minor point, perhaps, but how would you know this guy hid a bomb? The scales of justice tilt heavily in favor of a 100,000 good people facing eminent death and against the human rights of one terrorist. I would challenge anyone to argue this hypothetical. I don't think people have come to grips with the horror terrorism presents the world. Your hypothetical hinges on the likelihood that accurate information to stop the bomb could be gathered by torturing the suspect. Torture does not produce reliable results. Further, a "professional" terrorist is quite possibly a fanatic and an idealist with a "cause" (reducing the effectiveness of torture), and may well have been trained in resisting torture, as well as be williing to martyr him or herself. Our time would best be spent pursuing more reliable ways to save lives and/or find the bomb in time. And I don't think people have come to grips with the horror torture presents the world.

03-10-2003, 02:11 PM	#26
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I agree, but Police aren't permitted to disregard laws, they are authorized to follow police procedures and policy. Yeah, that sounds better than the way I said it. They're not disregarding the laws; it's that certain laws (e.g. speed limit) don't apply to the police in certain situations (as outlined by police procedures and policy). I think I covered it a bit better in the bit about performing their duty as prescribed by the law.

03-10-2003, 02:17 PM	#28
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	Your hypothetical hinges on the likelihood that accurate information to stop the bomb could be gathered by torturing the suspect. Torture does not produce reliable results. Further, a "professional" terrorist is quite possibly a fanatic and an idealist with a "cause" (reducing the effectiveness of torture), and may well have been trained in resisting torture, as well as be williing to martyr him or herself. Our time would best be spent pursuing more reliable ways to save lives and/or find the bomb in time. this is a strong case AGAINST torture, I think. still, convince me that interrogation is not necessary. Can anyone tell me, on the basis of catching a suspect 'red handed', how else we are to get info?

03-10-2003, 02:25 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	(con)-science. Where is the con in science? In this case the end justifies the means. What I see here, and from other posters, is an assumtion that torture usually or always produces the desired results. This is not the case, especially when dealing with a "professional" terrorist fighting for a "cause". The actual "ends" of torture in this case will seldom match the desired outcome. There's little to no chance that torture in this case would find the hypothetical bomb in time. Say you suspected two people (one a terrorist who planted the bomb, and one who didn't, and has no knowledge of where the bomb actually is) and tortured them both to find the location of the bomb, eventually you would get a location from both subjects. That's the way torture works; eventually, the subject gives you what you want (but not necessarily correct information). However, the probability is high that in both cases, the location would be wrong. Both subject make up locations to stop the torture. Torture is, simply, not reliable (on top of being not moral).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.