• 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!

Does defense justify torture?

Does defense justify torture?

  • Total voters
    49
In some instances it is liberalism or conservatism, however, I think of it in terms of the position the person is charged with. A leader, should hopefully, look at his position as defending or expanding the interests of his people. Then, you know, you could look at whether or not said interests are a good thing for everyone else or whatever instead of just a small portion of humanity, but I think you get the gist of what I mean.
 
Fiddytree said:
In some instances it is liberalism or conservatism, however, I think of it in terms of the position the person is charged with. A leader, should hopefully, look at his position as defending or expanding the interests of his people.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that is within the job description for our president.

Fiddytree said:
Then, you know, you could look at whether or not said interests are a good thing for everyone else or whatever instead of just a small portion of humanity, but I think you get the gist of what I mean.
Click to expand...

Ideally, the president should be doing what is best for the US and only concern himself with the welfare of another nation if it helps ours or at the very least does not inhibit our welfare in any way. However, we must also be reasonable. If doing disasterous harm to the welfare of another nation is the best way to promote ours, I do not think the leader would be doing the job correctly if that course of action is persued.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
This all takes for granted the assumption that torture is a useful means of acquiring information.
This assumption should be considered first before the question of its use.

for thought
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ies/studies/vol51no4/educing-information.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...f-files/BK-LochJohnson-EducingInformation.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm not expert on interrogation techniques, but theres seems to be an inherent problem with torturing. The most obvious problem is that the person being tortured might lie about knowing something to make the torture stop. Its much more effective to use other means to get information from a prisoner. Maybe if we stipulate that a prisoner has crucial information, then we could in a few circumstances justify torture, but those stipulations don't really apply to real life.
 
megaprogman said:
Yes, I agree that is within the job description for our president.



Ideally, the president should be doing what is best for the US and only concern himself with the welfare of another nation if it helps ours or at the very least does not inhibit our welfare in any way. However, we must also be reasonable. If doing disasterous harm to the welfare of another nation is the best way to promote ours, I do not think the leader would be doing the job correctly if that course of action is persued.
Click to expand...

The other thing is that on the other side of the same coin, the leader knows that other nations will use their power to the best of their abilities to promote themselves and possibly try to neutralize the influence or power of another party if it serves their interests. Which is why I kind of intended to not only include the Presidents and Prime Ministers, but all of the representatives of an executive or main policy decision-making body, including a State's UN ambassadors.

That being said, I think this is why much of the discussion of torture is lacking nuance. For conservatives, it can be seen as strictly a means of protecting us, for liberals and foreigners, it can be seen strictly through the lens of the United States acting immorally.
 
Last edited:
I agree the nuance is not present. That was one of my goals for starting this thread. My hope was that this could be discussed in an adult manner instead of the usual BS that stands for discourse around here. In fact, I should have started this thread in our super secret location since it will be tarded up sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
Well, I will inject a bit of BS.

You are a true bastard. I have a large exam to study for that covers Pre-history till now. I am being tested, literally on "everything". But instead of conquering the history of the world, I'm talking to you about this! :D
 
Fiddytree said:
Well, I will inject a bit of BS.

You are a true bastard. I have a large exam to study for that covers Pre-history till now. I am being tested, literally on "everything". But instead of conquering the history of the world, I'm talking to you about this! :D
Click to expand...

**** you and go away! :mrgreen:
 
digsbe said:
Good guys protect the innocent at all costs. Good guys wound't put lives at risk because they don't feel like doing something uncomfortable. I would say the bad guys care more about formalities and protecting the rights of murderous criminals than they do about thwarting terrorism and saving innocent lives.
Click to expand...

The ol' give up freedom for safety argument eh? Not all that convincing.
 
megaprogman said:
Amnesty International wants Bush prosecuted for his roll in waterboarding. One of the defenses of Bush I have come across is that torture is when used to defend innocent lives. I will admit, it is an interesting question for me to explore.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

It's most likely situational. In general, there should be no policy for it. We shouldn't employ torture in any ol' case we want. Particularly when we aren't being careful over who we jail in the first place. There are many many many bad things which come as a result of liberal use of torture. Additionally, the information gathered from torture is very suspect. Many people under extreme duress will say anything they need to in order to remove themselves from the environment.

Given the uncertainties involved, I would say that rarely would torture ever be a productive and justified method of information extraction.
 
I am kind of split on this. I think we should always take the high road even with enemy's. We should not reduce ourselves to their level, it makes us no better than them.

On the other hand water boarding does no physical damage because it works on a panic reflex. So again I just don't know. Better minds than mine have pondered it and the jury is still out.

Edit: I take that back. After further reading it can cause massive damage and death. I am sorry but that is torture.
 
Last edited:
Has torture ever been used effectively as a policy to extract information to any effective purpose? In this century people have been tortured for political repression as a rule, it was rarely if ever effective and the more lucrative results of these regimes was planting agents in networks of interest. Nazis and Soviets would torture people for months at a time (with no limits on their techniques), receive no pertinent info and ship their victims off to camps or to execution. What chance is there that a muslim who believes he does the work of God himself is going to give in to a nation occupying his territory? As far as I'm concerned the support for the policy of torture at this point is to prevent a loss of political face.
 
For defense to justify torture, it would have to be proven that torture improves defense. All information available to me suggests that it does not, and that it wastes our time and effort with false leads.

Success is the only justification, and torture does not succeed.

:kitty:
 
SE102 said:
Has torture ever been used effectively as a policy to extract information to any effective purpose?
Click to expand...

Yes.

We all know it is useless for the purpose of producing a confession; however, it is highly effective at getting information from someone whom we know has it. If the wrong information is given, it is checked and the interrogation continues. For example, the classic "someone has the code to save millions"... of course we torture and chances are we get the answer (perhaps with additional rather inhumane methods). Ask the mob, or the three people that the US waterboarded. "Torturing" for info you know someone has pays. Of course, we should only do it in the most extreme cases, when the recipient has been convicted beyond all reasonable doubt and is known to have such info as to directly save lives. The three times the US waterboarded (under those circumstances)... we got info that saved thousands of innocent lives.

Waterboard 3 internationally-well-known terrorists or let thousands of innocents die?

I don't think there is a decision to make there.
 
Last edited:
The mob and the three terrorists that the US waterboarded (if we are to consider that torture), as I mentioned above (perhaps in edit).

Are you going to deny that the mob gets great info from torture (given the circumstances I outlined above)? Are you going to deny that great info was gained from the three waterboardings?

Deny both if you want, but I think that's foolish (and the latter a matter of public record).

People put torture in the too narrow context of "torture for confession" and they need to consider that torture to discover verifiable information (eg. bomb location, co-conspirators or the code to the bomb) works.
 
Last edited:
Torture for verifiable information works, the only question is when to use it. I don't care if you like that.

The US waterboarded three people, total, and it was well worth it.

We'll have to agree to disagree, if you refuse to recognize what I believe to be reality.
 
Last edited:
If it is the year 1600, YES
If its 2000, NO
Conservatives, which or what year is it ?
The honest ones, if any, will say 1600, as it is the era from which the terrorists are operating....
Rootabega
 
I gave examples. The point is, you check the info and continue interrogation if necessary. When you can tell the recipient, "we checked and you lied, now it ges worse until you tell us something else..." it works. You get the real info, perhaps sometimes after things worse than torture.

Why do you think the military limits how much info a private gets? It's not just brainpower, it's security because the military knows something about torture... it works under the right circumstances (verifiable info).
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
For defense to justify torture, it would have to be proven that torture improves defense. All information available to me suggests that it does not, and that it wastes our time and effort with false leads.

Success is the only justification, and torture does not succeed.

:kitty:
Click to expand...
Revenge plays a large role in this scenario, info gathering takes a back seat...Our "not so better people", need to have something to do...
 
Always? Certainly almost. Let me torture you (and those you implicate, when physical evidence is not available) and see if I don't get some info.
Verifiable info.

Let's say no, for argument's sake.
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
Nazis and Soviets would torture people for months at a time (with no limits on their techniques), receive no pertinent info and ship their victims off to camps or to execution.
Click to expand...
Have you heard of the Nazi's best interrogator?
With "no limits" on the techniques at his disposal, how do you suppose he became such a renowned and effective interrogator?

Hanns Scharff

He has been called the "Master Interrogator" of the Luftwaffe and possibly all of Nazi Germany...
He is highly praised for the success of his techniques, especially considering he never used physical means to obtain the required information. No evidence exists he even raised his voice in the presence of a prisoner of war (POW). Scharff’s interrogation techniques were so effective that he was often called upon to assist other German interrogators in their questioning of bomber pilots and aircrews, including those crews and fighter pilots from countries other than the United States. Additionally, Scharff was charged with questioning V.I.P.s (Very Important Prisoners) that funneled through the interrogation center, namely senior officers and world-famous fighter aces.
Hanns Scharff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​


Welcome to the MCITTA Official Web Site
Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association
Hanns Scharff — Master Interrogator
Hanns Scharff was primarily an American 8th and 9th Air Force Fighter pilot interrogator. [During WW II against Germany.] He was considered the best of the interrogators at Dulag Luft. He gained the reputation of magically getting all the answers he needed from the prisoners of war, often with the prisoners never realizing that their words, small talk or otherwise, were important pieces of the mosaic. It is said he always treated his prisoners with respect and dignity, and by using psychic not physical techniques, he was able to make them drop their guard and converse with him even though they were conditioned to remain silent.​
 
Last edited:
No, torture must never be official policy of a free country. There are just some things that are wrong without any exception. You don't even need to look at the giant potential for abuse of such a policy to believe it's wrong.

Once we drop our standard and allow torture, there is a slippery slope. Next thing are extralegal renditions, denial of fair trials and prison camps. What's next? Considering suspects of all kind guilty without a trial? Skipping the entire legal system and replacing it by drumheads? Doing away with all lawyers? Labor camps? Death camps? I'd rather not go there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom