Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sweep · 03-10-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

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

so, torture might not be so beneficial after all. I agree, but I'm still not convinced that the issue is 'black and white'. How about Muhammed. What are the chances of success?

Valmorian · 03-10-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
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.

Ok, now instead of the terrorist, suppose that the information in question is held by an innocent person. That person cannot recall the information, but through torture might be able to recall it. Is it STILL justifiable?

Both hypothetical situations are quite unlikely. FAR more common is the situation where you are uncertain if the person in question has the information you need.

dk · 03-10-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
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.[/b]

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

(snip)

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.

Ok, lets be a little more realistic. The terrorist assembled the bomb in a high-rise Manhattan apartment. The terrorist was been under surveillance, and when he tried to leave the city was arrested. His apartment was searched and a bomb found with the timer set to go off in one 1 hour. To safely defuse the bomb you need to punch in a sequence of five 3 digit numbers. You need his cooperation not his consent, so do you twiddle your thumbs and let 100,000 people die, or coerce him against his will, even with torture?

Valmorian · 03-10-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sweep
so, torture might not be so beneficial after all. I agree, but I'm still not convinced that the issue is 'black and white'. How about Muhammed. What are the chances of success?

Is ANYTHING permissible, if the chances of success are high enough? What if you discovered that the terrorist has a child? Would you be prepared to torture the child in front of the terrorist to get him to talk?

sweep · 03-10-2003, 02:56 PM

no

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 02:58 PM

Ok, lets be a little more realistic. The terrorist assembled the bomb in a high-rise Manhattan apartment. The terrorist was been under surveillance, and when he tried to leave the city was arrested. His apartment was searched and a bomb found with the timer set to go off in one 1 hour. To safely defuse the bomb you need to punch in a sequence of five 3 digit numbers. You need his cooperation not his consent, so do you twiddle your thumbs and let 100,000 people die, or coerce him against his will, even with torture?

Once again, torture is not reliable, and in particular in this scenario.

Any terrorist worth his snuff could easily withstand one hour of torture without giving out the correct information (he or she is fighting for a cause, right?). Even if the time was longer than an hour, note that the bomb could be rigged to blow up if the wrong code or a particular code was entered. All he'd have to do is say "OH, STOP! HERE'S THE DAMN NUMBER!" and then BOOM! If the terrorists knew we were willing to torture them to get a number, this would be the logical response. We'd have no way to know if the number was right or wrong except by trying it.

dk · 03-10-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sweep
no

Do you think it would be ok to take him to ground 0, back to his apartment?

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 03:01 PM

Is that supposed to make him talk? If we've learned anything, it's that these guys are willing to die for their cause. Plus - who's gonna take him?

Autonemesis · 03-10-2003, 03:06 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That was good a few laughs. Pat Buchannan worrying about the sexual abuse young prisoners take, for instance, was priceless.

His attempt to write off objections to turture as merely "a sign of fuzzy liberal thinking" was also good for several out-loud guffaws.

The is-ought fallacies flow freely, as they always do in this sort of apology: "But if it is moral to go to war and kill thousands to prevent potential acts of terror on U.S. soil, why cannot we inflict pain on one man, if that would stop imminent acts of terror on U.S. soil? "

Yeah, Pat - and if it is not moral to invade Iraq, what then? Oh, never thought of that one, did you?

dk · 03-10-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Ok, lets be a little more realistic. The terrorist assembled the bomb in a high-rise Manhattan apartment. The terrorist was been under surveillance, and when he tried to leave the city was arrested. His apartment was searched and a bomb found with the timer set to go off in one 1 hour. To safely defuse the bomb you need to punch in a sequence of five 3 digit numbers. You need his cooperation not his consent, so do you twiddle your thumbs and let 100,000 people die, or coerce him against his will, even with torture?

Once again, torture is not reliable, and in particular in this scenario.

Any terrorist worth his snuff could easily withstand one hour of torture without giving out the correct information (he or she is fighting for a cause, right?). Even if the time was longer than an hour, note that the bomb could be rigged to blow up if the wrong code or a particular code was entered. All he'd have to do is say "OH, STOP! HERE'S THE DAMN NUMBER!" and then BOOM!

Maybe the terrorist holds up, maybe not. The point is without coercion the bomb goes boom, and 100,000 men women and children die, and another million burned by radiation .

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

03-10-2003, 02:56 PM	#35
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	no

03-10-2003, 02:58 PM	#36
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ok, lets be a little more realistic. The terrorist assembled the bomb in a high-rise Manhattan apartment. The terrorist was been under surveillance, and when he tried to leave the city was arrested. His apartment was searched and a bomb found with the timer set to go off in one 1 hour. To safely defuse the bomb you need to punch in a sequence of five 3 digit numbers. You need his cooperation not his consent, so do you twiddle your thumbs and let 100,000 people die, or coerce him against his will, even with torture? Once again, torture is not reliable, and in particular in this scenario. Any terrorist worth his snuff could easily withstand one hour of torture without giving out the correct information (he or she is fighting for a cause, right?). Even if the time was longer than an hour, note that the bomb could be rigged to blow up if the wrong code or a particular code was entered. All he'd have to do is say "OH, STOP! HERE'S THE DAMN NUMBER!" and then BOOM! If the terrorists knew we were willing to torture them to get a number, this would be the logical response. We'd have no way to know if the number was right or wrong except by trying it.

03-10-2003, 03:01 PM	#38
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Is that supposed to make him talk? If we've learned anything, it's that these guys are willing to die for their cause. Plus - who's gonna take him?

03-10-2003, 03:06 PM	#39
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That was good a few laughs. Pat Buchannan worrying about the sexual abuse young prisoners take, for instance, was priceless. His attempt to write off objections to turture as merely "a sign of fuzzy liberal thinking" was also good for several out-loud guffaws. The is-ought fallacies flow freely, as they always do in this sort of apology: "But if it is moral to go to war and kill thousands to prevent potential acts of terror on U.S. soil, why cannot we inflict pain on one man, if that would stop imminent acts of terror on U.S. soil? " Yeah, Pat - and if it is not moral to invade Iraq, what then? Oh, never thought of that one, did you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.