• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Torture

Knowledge=power

Knowledge=power

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
392
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is it ever justifiable in any circumstance?
 
Indeed said:
When it prevents more than one other death or torture. Then it's square in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Describe a scenario where you see it being justifiable.

In my head when I think 'torture', I think intelligence type stuff such as the CIA. I don't see it being a domestic thing.
 
It depends on what constitutes 'torture' in your opinion.
 
Monserrat said:
It depends on what constitutes 'torture' in your opinion.
Click to expand...

True. Torture is the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person or animal.
 
I don't know.

I honestly, don't know.
 
Monserrat said:
It depends on what constitutes 'torture' in your opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree.


Indeed said:
True. Torture is the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person or animal.
Click to expand...


What about psychological torture? In some cases, it can be worse than physical torture.

Solitary confinement, constant repetitive noise, dripping water on the forehead, etc etc.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I don't know.

I honestly, don't know.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. I feel this way too, because I know it is awful, but it could be necessary in certain situations.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Is it ever justifiable in any circumstance?
Click to expand...

My instinctual reaction is to say no.

However, from a purely intellectual standpoint, it would strike me as being unwise to completely rule out a practice which has been effectively used to derive information from unwilling subjects for most of human history.

There is a time and place for torture just like everything else. The immediate need to extract information simply has to be dire enough.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
There is a time and place for torture just like everything else. The need to extract certain information simply needs to be dire enough.
Click to expand...

What sort of situation would you view as dire enough? I agree with you by the way.
 
Knowledge=power said:
What sort of situation would you view as dire enough? I agree with you by the way.
Click to expand...

There are really any number of hypothetical scenarios one could put forward.

For example, if a major city were to come under threat from a "dirty bomb" or other similarly destructive device and you were to capture a member of the terrorist cell responsible, I would have absolutely no problem using torture to attempt and extract the information necessary to stop the plot if the subject had already proven resistant to other, more conventional, techniques. It would frankly be negligent and irresponsible not to torture under such circumstances.

There are also certain circumstances on the battlefield where impromtu "torture" might prove to be necessary.
 
Last edited:
Knowledge=power said:
I agree.





What about psychological torture? In some cases, it can be worse than physical torture.

Solitary confinement, constant repetitive noise, dripping water on the forehead, etc etc.
Click to expand...

True as well. In some cases, captives are even made to sleep in refrigerated rooms. However, physical torture seems much more common and therfore a larger problem.

My point is that if it saves multiple lives, it's worth it to me. How can we say that this person's body or mind are worth multiple other people's lives?
 
Gathomas88 said:
There are really any number of hypothetical scenarios one could put forward.

For example, if a major city were to come under threat from a "dirty bomb" or other similarly destructive device and you were to capture a member of the terrorist cell responsible, I would have absolutely no problem using torture to attempt and extract the information necessary to stop the plot if the subject had already proven resistant to other, more conventional, techniques. It would frankly be negligent and irresponsible not to torture under such circumstances.

There are also certain circumstances on the battlefield where impromtu "torture" might prove to be necessary.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, but I am waiting for the people who will say 'absolutely not' to show up to this thread. The problem I am going to have is that many people who will say they support torture, are the same people who do not support the death penalty.

Let's say someone tortures innocent people. Should he/she be tortured back? Is it justifiable then?
 
Indeed said:
True as well. In some cases, captives are even made to sleep in refrigerated rooms. However, physical torture seems much more common and therfore a larger problem.

My point is that if it saves multiple lives, it's worth it to me. How can we say that this person's body or mind are worth multiple other people's lives?
Click to expand...

Right, I agree. I don't want to stray off topic here, but I am sure we will have some people in opposition to torture, or who support torture but do not support the death penalty or severe punishment of criminals.

Could torture be used as a punishment? Ever?
 
Knowledge=power said:
I agree with you 100%, but I am waiting for the people who will say 'absolutely not' to show up to this thread.
Click to expand...

absolutely not.

Knowledge=power said:
The problem I am going to have is that many people who will say they support torture, are the same people who do not support the death penalty.
Click to expand...

i support the death penalty in some cases.

Knowledge=power said:
Let's say someone tortures innocent people. Should he/she be tortured back? Is it justifiable then?
Click to expand...

no.

i don't consider chemical "truth serum" to be torture, however. improve that technology.

if you tortured me, i'd admit to almost anything to make it stop. that's not an accurate way to get info.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I agree with you 100%, but I am waiting for the people who will say 'absolutely not' to show up to this thread. The problem I am going to have is that many people who will say they support torture, are the same people who do not support the death penalty.

Let's say someone tortures innocent people. Should he/she be tortured back? Is it justifiable then?
Click to expand...

I would say no... Just because I can see the establishment of that precedent leading down a rather slippery slope from there.

The last thing we want to do is return to the days where local rulers (more reminiscent of mafia dons, to be honest) had the legal right to torture and mutilate more or less at will.

Helix said:
if you tortured me, i'd admit to almost anything to make it stop. that's not an accurate way to get info.
Click to expand...

I've heard this argument more times than I care to count. Frankly, I just really don't buy it.

Torture has been the more or less universally approved method of getting uncooperative subjects to spill what they know for almost 10,000 years. People wouldn't keep using it if it didn't work at least some of the time.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
absolutely not.
Click to expand...

A terrorist is found to have knowledge of an impending terrorist attack larger in scale than 9/11 which could possibly result in the loss of thousands of innocent lives if not stopped... you wouldn't torture the terrorist to get the information if all other techniques failed?


Helix said:
i support the death penalty in some cases.
Click to expand...


I was waiting for this. I support the death penalty too, however, what do you think is worse? Death? Or torture? With torture, you do not die. You see the paradox here.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
I would say no... Just because I can see the establishment of that precedent leading down a rather slippery slope from there.

The last thing we want to do is return to the days where local rulers (more reminiscent of mafia dons, to be honest) had the legal right to torture and mutilate more or less at will.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean and agree. What I'm saying is, if you intend to kill someone, but you know you will be tortured if you are found guilty, would you still do it? I think torture is an excellent deterrent. More so than death.
 
Knowledge=power said:
A terrorist is found to have knowledge of an impending terrorist attack larger in scale than 9/11 which could possibly result in the loss of thousands of innocent lives if not stopped... you wouldn't torture the terrorist to get the information if all other techniques failed?
Click to expand...

no.

Knowledge=power said:
I was waiting for this. I suppor the death penalty too, however, what do you think is worse? Death? Or torture? With torture, you do not die. You see the paradox here.
Click to expand...

death is inevitable, and war is nearly so at this still early point in our societal evolution. torture isn't, and it has no place in a first world society. if that means the end of our first world society, so be it. eventually these concepts need to be eradicated from human and societal evolution like the diseases that they are.

with the complete removal of torture as a possibility, there will still be a desperate need for info from those unwilling to give it. this will spur the development of other means of getting the info, most likely pharmaceutical means. while i don't like that much, either, and though i do see serious potential for abuse, that's still better than torture.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Right, I agree. I don't want to stray off topic here, but I am sure we will have some people in opposition to torture, or who support torture but do not support the death penalty or severe punishment of criminals.

Could torture be used as a punishment? Ever?
Click to expand...

hmmm... I don't think so. Well, it could be, but not morally in my mind.

And btw, I support the death penalty in cases of repeat murderers or repeat rapists. And anyone sentenced to life in prison should be able at any time to opt for death. And we should use bullets instead of poison.
 
Helix said:
no.
Click to expand...


What if you or your family were in danger? I just don't get how you wouldn't do whatever necessary to get information which would save lives.


Helix said:
death is inevitable, and war is nearly so at this still early point in our societal evolution. torture isn't, and it has no place in a first world society. if that means the end of our first world society, so be it. eventually these concepts need to be eradicated from human and societal evolution like the diseases that they are.

with the complete removal of torture as a possibility, there will still be a desperate need for info from those unwilling to give it. this will spur the development of other means of getting the info, most likely pharmaceutical means. while i don't like that much, either, and though i do see serious potential for abuse, that's still better than torture.
Click to expand...

Until we get to that point, torture will remain necessary in some circumstances.
 
Indeed said:
hmmm... I don't think so. Well, it could be, but not morally in my mind.

And btw, I support the death penalty in cases of repeat murderers or repeat rapists. And anyone sentenced to life in prison should be able at any time to opt for death. And we should use bullets instead of poison.
Click to expand...

Think of the deterrent power of torture... very powerful indeed.

I agree with your second point, bullets are cheaper and faster.
 
Torture is justified only in a ticking time bomb type situation where the information from the tortured person will save lives. In my opinion all torturers should be be put on trial to defend their decision to commit the crime. Let a jury decide whether the choice to torture was justified.

There are several big problems with torture. It is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, it violates international treaties that the USA ratified, and the results are unreliable since a tortured person will say anything to stop the torture. There is evidence that bad information from a tortured person may have helped get us into the war on Iraq.

One especially big problem is that many torturers and those who benefit from it enjoy and get addicted to the practice and it tends to get expanded to more and more purposes, including intimidation of political opponents.

The USA survived over 200 years without legalized torture, it can, and should, return to banning torture and renditions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom