Is torture ALWAYS wrong?

[Limelight]

I always wonder if anyone out there sees this like I do so I thought I'd ask. In my opinion, which I'm sure won't be popular, Yes... there are situations where it would be ok to torture someone to get information. Now, before anyone has a conniption let me explain why and when I think it would be ok.

It'll sound funny, but half the reason I think torture is acceptable (off the book, not officially) is because I'm a big "24" fan. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm well aware that's fiction and this is real life, but try to listen for a moment. There was an episode a season or two ago where Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) and CTU (the Counter Terrorist Unit) captured a man involved with the planning stages of a terrorist group stealing and mounting a stolen nuclear warhead on a missile they had assembled inside the US. The problem was the terrorist caught wind of him being captured and called an international civil liberties lawyer to meet them at CTU.

Now the warhead had already been stolen and it was being mounted as they were hauling the guy in. Time was of the absolute essence, but they couldn't do what they wanted to do to this guy (who was a US citizen by the way) in order to get the info he had out of him in time and the president (who was a pansy all fans of the show hated... not President Palmer, but the other dude) refused to allow them to use torture as a means to make him talk. Long story short Jack said ok, let him go.

They did let the suspect go, but Jack was in the backseat of dudes car waiting on him. Basically he started snapping his fingers until the guy told him what he needed to know and talk the man did. And he did give up the correct information.

Now, back to reality here. My point by relating that was to illustrate a situation in which I think it would be proper to use any means necessary to get the information they needed. They were in the middle of a dangerous situation in which they knew the plot was in motion with only a small window of opportunity to shut the whole thing down before hundreds of thousands got killed. Make believe or not it isn't as if something similar couldn't occur. We all know that our Nuclear power plants and other facilities are vulnerable.

In my opinion, as distasteful as it is, torture is acceptable in a situation where you know a plan is in motion with hours, rather than weeks, months or years are available to stop it. And let me be clear... I certainly don't agree with the way it is used by this administration who apparently think it's like a damn broad sword, huge and a weapon that's actually meant to crush rather than cut, swinging at any and everybody they can aim it at. It's actually a scalpel that should be used to cut out and extract an exact target for an exact purpose that time does not permit to be isolated and leveraged any other way.

I'll say this to be clear. Picking up and detaining dozens and dozens while denying their human rights and sending them to be tortured in other countries in order to maybe, possibly, catch a hold of some pie in the sky plot that you don't even know is real or will ever materialize is not right. However, in the midst of a detailed, pains taking, evidence based investigation where you find that something is already in motion and your timetable is hours rather than weeks and years to stop it and you have a suspect all the evidence shows is connected to it? Ugly as it maybe you do what you have to do to save the lives of your citizens.

I will also say that in my opinion it should remain "officially" illegal. There are things in this world that you shouldn't open your mouth to condone, but muck and mire of reality makes necessary to clean up a particular mess. It was interesting... I saw a video on waterboarding somewhere where they did a bit of demonstration of how the process works. Clearly the shit is torture. This BS semantics game Bush and his administration is trying to play with us like we're stupid is infuriating. However, on that same video there was a law professor (I believe) who said if there is going to be torture then it should be doled out the same way search warrants and wire taps are. You go to a judge, present your evidence and receive permission. Though I don't like the idea of putting torture on the books as policy if it needs to be done then this kid of oversight and accountability in the process should be had. Perhaps it should be had no matter what and my "off the books" perception of how torture should be handled is off base... perhaps dangerous in the wrong hands and I acknowledge that.

Well that's where I'm coming from on it. I generally don't like when people talk in absolutes. I'm not saying some don't exist, but is torture really ALWAYS unjustified? I don't think so. The situations are few and scattered where it is, but they exist nonetheless. No need to be insulting about this. I just wanna hear what everyone else is thinking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Gee, I don't know.

You think maybe it's always wrong to rape young girls? Couldn't there be times when that's acceptable?

How about throwing puppies in a wood chipper? That can't always be bad.

Here's a question...

Is there such a thing as a stupid question? Hmm.

[Limelight]

12. Is there such a thing as a dumb, knee jerk response?

I generally don't like when people talk in absolutes. I'm not saying some don't exist, but is torture really ALWAYS unjustified?

Clearly there is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. You know what they say...

Ask a stupid question...

[Redstone]

19. Good Lord, I'm agreeing with you yet again. Who'd have thought?

Redstone

[Sapphocrat]

109. I can do you one better...

I'm agreeing with Bornaginhooligan! Beat that! :rofl:

(I hope that made you crack a smile at least, BAH. LOL)

[Redstone]

124. Yes, it gave me a smile. Thanks. History is being made tonight, yes?

Redstone

[uppityperson]

151. Me too. Odd.

[TankLV]

38. No - YOURS is the stupid post/question, by a LONG shot.

The response to YOUR stupid question is proper and appropriate...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. What if the little girl is really hot?

I mean, she's got on a really hot little miniskirt, likes she's begging for it, y'know?

Wouldn't that be justified?

Oh, and don't get me started on spousal abuse. I mean, how else are they supposed to learn not to burn the dinner?

[The Count]

175. Best. Answer. Ever.

Should have read this before posting.

[alittlelark]

154. Spot on... Bornaginhooligan gets it.

The OP needs some moral counseling.

[AX10]

2. Torture is always wrong!

[AZCat]

3. Yes.

1. It doesn't work like in the movies or on tv (see recent articles on the great torture catch - Padilla - for reference).

2. We have no right to treat other human beings in such a manner, regardless of their crimes (see the Constitution for specifics).

3. Without abstaining from torture, what right do we have to ask that our citizens (or anyone else, for that matter) not be tortured by other countries?

[enki23]

4. imagine a situation where a terrorist demanded you slit your mother's throat

in order to stop him from detonating a nuclear device which would kill millions of people. would you cut her throat? i probably would, if i was reasonably sure it would help stop the deaths of millions of people.

so should we, then, legalize murder?

i know you don't want it "officially" condoned. i don't want it *at all* condoned. if such a situation actually arose, people would have to use their fucking judgement. if they can make a significant case for their actions, they would be greeted as heroes. since such an extreme situation is unlikely in the extreme, this is all hand waving bullshit.

[Limelight]

23. Actually killing someone can be legal...

And not just in war. If you kill someone to save another persons life... like you come upon someone being attacked with a knife, you step in and in the process the attacker is killed, you may never be charged. It's called defense of others and some places do have that exception.

[JuniperLea]

26. Not the same thing

You cannot torture to save another's life, or in self-defense.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. So, what you're saying is...

if the insurgents captured a US troop, and they thought he knew the disposition of the other troops, it would be OK for the insurgents to torture US troops.

Support the troops, Limelight.

[Sapphocrat]

111. Apples and oranges.

Justifiable homicide, as in self defense, is one thing; pre-emptive homicide ("I'd better shoot my next-door neighbor because he might be thinking about killing me first") is quite another. Torture is more similar to the latter, not the former.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Just a realist and a humanist.

[Toots]

161. Sort of like attack that country before some lunatics attack us?????

I agree totally with what you say and feel what the USA did to Iraq falls into that cataqgory of being the same as torture....

[Coexist]

135. Yeah, 007 gets to!

[RC]

So you would trust the terrorist on his word?

[WinkyDink]

160. A heroic man would slit his own throat first.

[WindRavenX]

5. Torture is always wrong. Period.

NT

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

6. Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

No ifs. No ands. No buts. No qualifiers. no half-assed, slipshod, bogus reasoning to get around the edges- edges that are NOT fuzzy. The edges are as hard as diamond, as immovable as a mountain range, and as obvious to a reasoning human being as the nose on their face.

Torture is wrong.
Torture is WRONG.
Torture is WRONG.

[annabanana]

7. always wrong...

always...

[atommom]

8. Short answer: yes.

People are fallible, people can be cruel, and people can't be trusted to use torture judiciously "just in special circumstances." If it is allowed at all, things can get out of hand very quickly.

[etherealtruth]

9. There are few absolutes in this world

Torture is always wrong: this is an absolute

[Greyhound]

174. Hear, hear.

There are few absolutes, this is one. I find the fact that there are so many that are so tragically ignorant that they buy this crap quite disheartening.

[babylonsister]

10. Welcome to DU, Limelight.

I'm a big fan of '24' myself, but I believe it's been proven that people who are tortured lie easily, giving any kind of answer they think is wanted. And as for this clownish gang knowing a plan is in effect and trying to disrupt it, I wonder how many times that's happened? The plots they seem to have tried to thwart haven't even been plots to begin with, just wishful thinking.
But I'll sit back and defer to others.
:popcorn:

[KayLaw]

11. Always. Wrong.

Period.

[cool user name]

14. Yes.

As in yes, it is ALWAYS wrong to torture someone.

Torture is for sadists.

Edited for clarity.

[cool user name]

"Because I'm a big 24 fan"

This ain't fucking tv.

This real life.

[Limelight]

44. I'm well aware...

Which why I pointed that out in my post. Read closer next time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. You still seem confused.

[cool user name]

52. I don't have to read closer.

You lost me at the question.

Excuse me for not entertaining insanity.

[democrank]

15. Instead of dreaming up new ways to torture people

why don`t we take a long look at the arrogance that drives most of our foreign policy? If we truly were the peacemakers and if we really had respect for human rights,we wouldn`t be one of the most hated countries on earth.

Is torture okay? Hell no. Never. If, as a nation, we can start overlooking torture, there`s not much hope left for us.

[Redstone]

16. Because it DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!! How fucking hard is that to understand?

You torture someone, they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.

Fuck me, why am I trying to explain this to someone who is so obviously either twelve years old or an imbecile?

Redstone

[Taverner]

72. That is true with 99% of torture

But Sodium Penathol (which is defined as torture) is usually reliable

[ContraBass Black]

147. That is directly contrary to my understanding.

So far as I know, it has the same reliability as external torture.

[immoderate]

149. Not true.

Even you use a qualifier "usually." How usual is it? It's reliaable as a tranquiliser, not so as a "truth serum."

--IMM

[MoseyWalker]

17. perhaps some sort of double blind

waterboarding, starvation and lack of water with the spotlight on 24/7 scientific test is needed. Who wants to participate in this study? Somebody who asks this question possibly?

Sorry to sound so harsh, but this is inane, and bordering on the insane.

Torture. If you don't want it ever done to you, then you already have the answer to your question.

[Imagevision]

18. Depends on the situation... if they were hurting your kid? -- no problem!

[Kagemusha]

20. Perhaps, in abstract, torture is not always useless. But it is always wrong

and it would be wise NEVER to forget that.

[KyndCulture]

21. Unequivocally ALWAYS wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. 'kay, you just regurgitated the 'ticking bomb' canard.

Nice. So lets just pile on to that logic. Suppose we have available a child of the alleged perp, should we not torture the child in view of the perp in order to obtain the information we need? But why stop there? Suppose that doesn't work, how about slowly roasting the kid over a fire? But why stop there? We know where the rest of the perp's family is, why not round them all up and torture and kill them one by one until the perp talks? But why stop there? We know the neighborhood where the perp lives, we know all of his friends, why not bring in all of his friends and neighbors for some torture and slow killing until the perp spills the beans?

No, the ticking bomb canard is just bullshit.

[JuniperLea]

24. Torture is ALWAYS WRONG!

There is no justification for torture. There is no hard evidence that torture gets good intelligence and plenty to suggest it does not.

It's never OK to torture. We should not torture others and they should not torture us. If we say it's OK to torture other soldiers, then everyone else in the world has the right to torture our soldiers.

Simple school-yard smarts tell us torture is a very bad thing. Very bad. Nothing good has ever come from torture.

If you could name and verify one good thing that ever came from torture, I'd say that perhaps your idea that a sweeping generalization of this issue is bad. You can't. Torture has never given the world anything good.

[MrSlayer]

25. I should be allowed to torture Michael Bolton.

For obvious reasons.

[AZCat]

29. Why?

He's one of the best programmers we have! (he and Samir, of course)


Or are you perhaps referring to that no-talent ass-clown?

[MrSlayer]

58. Never saw that movie but I've heard the line.

Yes the ass-clown is to whom I am referring.

[AZCat]

67. Ahhh - that's good.

Because if it was otherwise I'd have to get nasty. :)

[stepnw1f]

27. IT DOESN'T WORK.....

If I tortured you, you would tell me what ever I wanted to hear just to make me stop torturing you....

Not to mention it SHOULD be considered IMMORAL by everybody, unless you are a sociopath with no concience.

[stillcool]

28. I do not use the words 'always' or 'never'...

but should I find myself in a circumstance where I do something inhumane to another human being I know I WILL pay the price, regardless of the particular circumstance. As sure as night follows day. For a government to not only condone but encourage such treatment...I don't know...but somewhere down the road we are in for a world of hurt...and maybe at that time you will have your answer.

[melissinha]

30. you start on the wrong foot, first determine what tactics are effective

and THEN determine whether it is ethical to employ them. The fact is that many of hte tactics that our interrogators have used were not effective in any circumstance and did nothign but provoke.

[lcordero2]

31. YES n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. Yes. It's wrong, always.

In a shades of gray world there are still a few things that are absolute, and that's one of them. Maybe you can accomplish something by doing it (although the world doesn't work like "24", which is fascist rot, IMO), but it's wrong anyhow. To coin a cliche: When you choose the lesser of two evils you're still chosing evil.

[ptolle]

179. information vs, truth

Short answer from my POV yes. starting here:if cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America--even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It's a transformative issue." - former general counsel of the U.S. Navy Alberto J. Mora, in "The Memo":http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
Continuing I'd recommend you look up the experiences of a WWII Marine Corps major named Sherwood F. Moran and read up on his experiences as an interrogator of Japanese POWs and his views on TRUTH extraction as opposed to just garnering information. Generally speaking I'm not sold on absolutes of any kind, but this is, and always will be for me an exception.

[OzarkDem]

34. It doesn't work

Even the military experts will tell you its not effective as a means of getting information. The military has developed much better methods of getting information from prisoners.

Even the Bush adminstration is unable to point to any benefit from torture.

So that's the big question: why use it if it doesn't work?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

35. As a policy? Yes it is.

In the Jack scenario?

It's fiction. Pretty good TV in fact. But there are boundaries that Jack crosses and may or may not have to pay for. If you have to beet the shit out of someone to find out where they have your child secreted in a coffin buried 12 feet underground with only an hour's worth of O2, 'll help you get the information. Let's include this caveat though: Those situations don't happen that often and a jury would most likely excuse the father or mother.

That's why there should be laws against this sort of thing to assure that people know there are potential repercussions for their behaviors.

[TankLV]

36. YES!!! What a stupid fucking question!

Only idiots and troll support torture under ANY circumstances...

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Yours is a variation of the ticking bomb scenario

I invite you to muse my droppings on the subject . . .

Originally published in Democratic Underground
Narch 11, 2004

Why Torture Doesn't Work:
A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary.

Torture is regarded by progressive civil libertarians as an abomination that every civilized nation should outlaw. Modern international humanitarian law categorically prohibits its use. The Rome Statute classifies torture as a crime against humanity, the Third Geneva Convention (1949; Aritcles 3, 17, 87 and 130) prohibits its use against prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949; Articles 3, 32 and 147) probhits it against civilians in situations of armed conflict. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948; Article 5) states unequivocally, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Gloss is put on these declarations concerning torture by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the United States is a party.

The Convention defines torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Dershowitz is regarded by many as a progressive civil libertarian. That he should part company with others on a matter that many feel defines progressivism has outraged more than a few. However, when one such as Dershowitz suggests that we cast aside much of what we hold dear, perhaps we should give him a hearing.

Read more

[Nikia]

39. Some might think this is almost as unethical

But drugs work on many people. When I had my colonscopy, I probably would have told them anything on what I was on and not have remembered anything.
I think that this is still considered torture under international law, but in an emergency I don't think that it would be inhumane.

[Mythsaje]

116. This actually corresponds to a thought I had a few years back...

Why actually torture people when you could just hook them on heroin (or something equally addictive) and deny them the drug until they gave up the info?

It would probably be MORE effective than torture.

[Canuckistanian]

40. Warning: don't base your moral views based on things you saw on TV

Torture is wrong. Always.

[Limelight]

51. My morals say...

The potential to save thousands of lives might constitute doing something ugly to do it. That ain't anything I got from tv. I simply used that to illustrate a concept.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. morals?

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

144. But those kind of circumstances rarely occur

Certainly not often enough to justify the scale of abuse and torture we've heard about.

And the propaganda used to justify it (using arguments such as yours) is what's going to make it out of control.

This is not just the "slippery slope", it's well documented that countries that use torture even for limited purposes almost inevitably end up using it as the "standard practice".

[uppityperson]

152. you can save thousands of lives by getting someone to lie by torturing them?

OK. You do know that people getting tortured will confess to anything? Not sure how this, these false, tortured confessions could save thousands of lives though.

[Proud MD Liberal]

41. Yes

In 100% of the circumstances, it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS wrong

[gratuitous]

42. Turn off the TV for a second

You're saying that you've got a bad guy. No ifs, ands or buts. You know he's a wrongdoer. You also further know that he and his pals have a plot to detonate a nuclear device (or something equally nefarious). The problems start seeping in, and pretty soon swamp the scenario.

First, how do you know this guy's a bad guy? You've probably been tipped off and had him under surveillance, no? And if you know (not suspect, but know -- it's very important that you know, otherwise you can't justify the torture, right?) that something bad's about to go down, you've probably been watching him for a while. And yet, you don't know who any of his associates are, who he's been calling or writing to, who he's been communicating with by e-mail, or anything else? What, did everyone take a little nap at the Counterterrorism Store and miss it, but somehow wake up in time to say, "Holy smokes, they're gonna set off a nuke!"

In short, uh, no. And if you ease the restrictions back to "Okay, we don't know if he's got a bomb, but we're pretty sure," you might as well blow the door off the hinges, because you're soon going to have to torture everyone, because how could you possibly say you were doing your job if a terrorist attack occurs, and you could have tortured someone into talking if you'd only known . . . or been suspicious enough? Let's face it, the prospect of a major city glowing green from radiation is going to outweigh some poor schlub's right to keep all his fingers, because you just can't be too careful, can you?

So no, put me down for the "torture is always wrong" crowd.

[Imagevision]

49. There are two sides to every coin

[gratuitous]

65. Not to mention

That the guy making the decision to torture isn't always going to be true blue Jack Bauer, fighting for justice and the American way. Sometimes it's going to be Sadistic Sam, who gets off on inflicting pain. Sometimes it's going to be Delmer Dunderhead, who's just following orders.

[0rganism]

45. Is basing policy decisions on hypothetical corner cases from TV crime dramas always wrong?

Yes, it is.

thanks for playing.

[Limelight]

57. Yeah, again...

It was illustration of a concept that I think I explained pretty well. When you read it again and discuss the concept, whether you agree or not, you can give me my prize.

[0rganism]

105. re-read it yourself, assumptions limit real applicability to zero

Like all "ticking bomb" scenarios, it makes vast assumptions and -- as we have no current proviso for "torture warrants" -- discards the rule of law. The investigator is entrusted with the duties of judge, jury, and executioner. You say, "all evidence points to the suspect", but a "suspect" is completely different from a "convict". Making the leap to your "24"-style scenario discards this distinction.

Furthermore, it improbably posits that torture is more likely to produce correct information than misinformation, and, even more fanciful, that torture is more likely to lead to a positive resolution (e.g., disarming the alleged bomb before it explodes) than any other possible method of investigation.

Does that mean no one would ever do it? Certainly not; clearly, as you note yourself, people have been tortured for insufficient reasons in the name of casting the "wide net", far weaker than the hypotheticals you posit in your "justifiable" scenario. That affects neither the legality nor morality of the hypothetical.

Your prize is an opportunity to present even one verified instance of such an occurrance.

[China_cat]

46. Yes, well, look at the confessions torture has elicited.

From 'witches' who confessed to kissing the devil's penis and flying through the air and putting curses on people...who were then burned or hanged (in the 'colonies') for their confessions. Hurt somebody--anybody--enough and they will say anything to make it stop. The only thing torture satisfies is the sadism of the torturer.

[Eugene]

48. Torture is always wrong.

It is an unreliable means of extracting the truth and
it opens the door to repression deadlier than terrorism.
Every case of getting the bad guy becomes urgent enough
to justify torture even if innocents get sacrificed.
Information extracted by torture is of too low quality
at too high a price.

Remember that now-discredited "intelligence" linking
Saddam with al-Qaeda was extracted with torture.

[Redstone]

50. Only when you're taking a break from beating your kids, if you know what I mean

and I think you do.

Redstone

[Limelight]

64. I think I do...

And could kinda care less.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. But limelight...

I thought you wanted to know what the rest of us were thinking!

:rofl:

[Redstone]

68. You'd do the one, I can see where you'd condone the other.

Both being hypothetical situations, of course, so maybe you just don't understand how the real world works.

Redstone

[Limelight]

70. Condone beating my child?

No. Disciplining them should that be necessary? Sure, as beating and diciplining aren't the same thing. But we digress... and yeah I wanted to know what everyone thought of the subject at hand there Mr. Hooligan.

[Redstone]

74. Uh, I'm not Mr Hooligan. I'm Mr Redstone.

Redstone

[Limelight]

82. I'm aware... killing 2 birds with one stone.

n/t

[Redstone]

90. Afraid you'll have to do better than that to kill THESE two birds. He and I don't generally

get along well, but he's just as tough an old bird as I am.

Good luck to you.

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. You've got kids?

Goodness, I thought that given your fascination with TV shows, swords, moral confusion, and writing, that you'd be 13, 14 tops.

[Limelight]

83. I'm a kid because I don't agree with you?

Now who's being immature?

[QuestionAll...]

98. I think you now have a fair idea of what everyone thinks...

you can go now.

[Ian David]

108. What if we just beat Limelight's kid? n/t

[Limelight]

114. Be easier if limelight had a kid.

n/t

[Ian David]

115. What happened to him? n/t

[uppityperson]

153. think they were hypothetical children?

:shrug: Or maybe they got spanked too hard they ran away?

[Redstone]

118. Oh, GOD, that was funny! My cheekbones hurt from laughing. THANK you.

Redstone

[The Count]

173. Not beating . Disciplining them. Really hard. For information. To save people.

This OP confirms something I always suspected about 24 fans.

[Mythsaje]

54. In a hypothetical situation

I think some people would probably change their stance slightly. Something personal, perhaps.

Say your child has been kidnapped, for example, and one of the people responsible has made the mistake of falling into your hands. For all the idealism on the subject many people display publically, I'm not sure basic human emotion wouldn't interfere with their stated objections to the practice. Most people, I believe, would do what it took to get the information they needed, idealism be damned. Especially if there was a reason they couldn't go to law enforcement for help, or couldn't trust that law enforcement had the best interest of their child in mind. Or, again, hypothetically, in some scenario of a dystopic collapse of civil authority.

Certain levels of idealism are not only laudible, but necessary for the advancement of civilized behavior. But in some cases, such as those I've outlined, I think some people would be at a distinct advantage because they would find it possible to grasp the fact that the rules may have changed and hanging on to their idealism is not an asset, but a detriment, to their chance of success and survival.

My wife and I have conversations on the subject in relation to the show "Jericho" and the fact that we believe that some of the characters have not come to the grips with the fact that the rules of survival have changed drastically and certain things that were unthinkable before are now part of the necessities of life. Like forming questionable alliances and making deals with "bad" people.

This in no way impedes the argument against institutional torture, however. An institution, such as the U.S. government, is not acting on emotion, but within a larger framework of responsibility. Its choices to conduct itself this way not only presents itself in a bad light, but also risks the safety of citizens and military personnel operating in other places.

This also carries forward into the behavior of law enforcement officials. They are also acting under the umbrella of an institutional authority, and, as such, are representing their society as a whole and cannot justify acting in a way that violates the ideals of that society. In my opinion.

Of course, I think my opinion in this matter might offend a few people here, but, that's nothing new. I simply recognize the difference between idealism and pragmatism where others may not. As an author, it's part of my job to think about things like this.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[dubykc]

55. YES!! Always!

[Beelzebud]

56. Yes, torture is always wrong, and you make me sick for using a TV show as your moral compass.

[Limelight]

73. LOL

Boy, it's like Deja Vu... the show was an illustration, not the reason I can see torture as potential necessity if all other means fail.

[Shakespeare]

79. In case you haven't figured this out yet....

You chose your illustration poorly.

And yes, torture is always wrong (and ooh! don't forget, it DOESN'T WORK).

[Redstone]

119. TV. Is. Not. Real. Life. Did I say that slowly enough for you to comprehend it?

Redstone

[Ms. Clio]

59. "I just wanna hear what everyone else is thinking."

me too and this thread has exceeded all my expectations.

oh, do it again, do it again! What other great ethical and philosophical questions perplex you, Grasshopper?

[seabeyond]

60. since every military person has said it does NOT work and it is

immoral, and hte info can never be trusted, i would say no... i do not see how it is validated under any situation

[aquart]

61. Why was torture abandoned?

If it's so efficiently effective, why did every single civilized nation drop it like a hot rock? Governments always had the right to torture. How come they don't anymore? Instead of beating a suspect into a confession, why do we use DNA and all those fun laboratories on all those CSI shows?

Torture is presented as the only viable option on tv shows with a rightwing mindset that believes that brute force will always bring victory. As I'm sure it eventually will in Iraq. When enough people are dead and the surviving are very, very quiet.

[Ms. Clio]

62. delete dupe

[irislake]

63. Not if the tortured one

loves it, pays for it, and begs for it. It may not be legal but if it turns you on sexually and it doesn't kill you who am I to condemn it? I do think the man in Germany who wanted to be eaten and turned himself over voluntarily to the cannibal went too far but I guess it was his choice. Lots of folks secretly enjoy being whipped but I haven't heard of anybody who likes to be water boarded. But hey --- it may catch on.

[StoryTeller]

69. Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

So is a lot of other things that humans do to each other.

In my world view, I consider it wrong not because of its effectiveness or ineffectiveness, but because it devalues a human life.

So often, we rank human life by whether or not we perceive that person to be innocent or guilty, good or bad, important or unimportant. Those we view as guilty, bad, or unimportant often are treated with less regard for their humanity and human dignity. This is wrong because we're basically setting ourselves up as judges and saying that we can assign human worth to whatever individuals we deem deserving of it--just because we have the power to do so.

But every human being, regardless of their own actions, is deserving of dignity and respect. Torture violates that basic human right. It is the effort of someone in power to break a fellow human's free will so that they lose the ability to make autonomous decisions. This is a horrific abuse of power and abuse of our fellow human beings.

So what about the "ticking bomb scenario"? Well, it makes for an exciting story. But the reality is, there is far more a civilization has to lose than individual lives. When we lose our respect for humanity and the basic right of autonomy, we will start down the path to our own destruction as a society.

And the truth is--no matter how much we may WANT to force someone to do what we want them to do, no matter how bad the consequences are if they don't--it doesn't make it okay to break a person. It's like trying to prove that two wrongs make a right. That's not how life works. We have to choose to behave in an ethical, responsible manner, regardless of what the other person chooses to do. We can and must do as much as we can to prevent the loss of life, but losing our morality and our own sense of ethics creates just as much destruction as what we are trying to prevent.

I know this sounds harsh. I care deeply about the risk of innocent lives being lost. But I know that death is only one way of destroying life. Becoming a society that tortures will also destroy us, from the inside out.

[Der Blaue Engel]

71. I remember the episode

It was the last one I ever watched, because I was repulsed by the scene.

I am equally repulsed by the mentality that torture is ever justified.

Let's just say, hypothetically, that you're a Christian. What answer do you think God would give you to that question?

Whatever your belief system, I think your moral compass needs adjustment.

[Limelight]

78. Actually...

I am a Christian. And the God of the old testament (who is the same as the one in the new and the one who exists today) had his people, the Isrealites, sack cities and put every person and animal in them to death. So, you tell me?

[Ms. Clio]

87. okay, I'll tell you

hope you are enjoying the limelight.

You'll be pushing up daisies soon. Too bad you can't be tortured first.

[Der Blaue Engel]

96. .

:rofl:

[Redstone]

128. Oh, that's harsh. And absolutely deserved by the OP. I'm glad you said it.

Redstone

[Ms. Clio]

143. harsh? me? wait till the sig lines come back and look at that sweet little face

and c'mon, is it really any worse than yours?

:rofl:

On edit: There she is!

[Der Blaue Engel]

92. Color me surprised

Thanks for confirming my suspicions about the loving God you believe in.

:hi:

[Shakespeare]

97. And you're not the slightest bit suspicious about what people do in God's name?

Do yourself a favor and go read a few books on the history of the authorship of the bible. Might be a real eye-opener for you, and at the very least should cause you not to read (especially the old testament) with complete literalness.

[Limelight]

107. I've read them...

And that's exactly it... what PEOPLE do in God's name. Not what God told them to do, but what they decided to do themselves and use God as their shield. Plenty of things man has done in the name of God that were wrong.

The Crusades... Spanish Inquisition... The Spanish conquest of South America and nearly wiping out an entire native people in the process... Lying to justify a war where thousands will be killed or injured despite the fact you say Jesus is your role model... Yeah, it doesn't take much examination to see that those things weren't prompted by God, but were simple grabs at power.

That's why I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state. It's not to protect people from God... if he wants you he'll get you, end of story. No, it's to protect people from the power other people get by invoking the name of God.

[Shakespeare]

110. Oh really? Which ones have you read?

Just curious.

Because, you know, you're using the example of old testament massacres as some sort of divinely sanctioned, and therefore acceptable, means of slaughter.

[beachmom]

129. Jesus was tortured. Do you think that was right? When you answer

that question, then you will know the answer to your original question.

[AZCat]

139. Well, if God starts telling you it's okay to torture people...

stay the f**k away from me.

The same of course applies if his/her advice is to sack cities and put people to death. Just because your particular deity has a bug up his/her ass doesn't mean you have the right to lay the smack-down on me.

[Gwerlain]

75. Don't moralize. You're falling into the trap...

laid for you by the Rethugs.

You can't always judge things using morals; there are always edge cases where you have to go back to the ethics that the morals were derived from, or even to the values that the ethics were derived from. If you don't, then you all might as well go out and start picketing abortion clinics.

Start with the values. The question here isn't, "Is there a situation in which torture is OK." There isn't any such situation. Torture is never "OK." It's always bad. But there are cases where it's a little bit bad, and cases where it's a lot bad. A recent thread here discussed spanking. Spanking, quite frankly folks, is torture. Sorry, but that's how it is; any of you who have much skill at critical thinking can see all the way down the path of the argument that proves it. So is imprisonment, when there is total public apathy and ignoring of incredible injustices in which inmates that rape other inmates are neither prevented, nor threatened with any sort of further punishment. It's a subject of jokes in our society. How funny do you think a formerly non-violent white collar criminal thinks those jokes are? Sounds like torture to me.

So: if spanking is torture, and the two-year-old steps into the street after you tell him not to, what course do you choose? This might be a difficult choice.

OK, so if imprisonment is torture (and it is!), and someone rapes people and shows no signs of remorse, what course do you choose? This seems a simpler choice, doesn't it?

Now, why is that?

OK, so what does that imply about the argument y'all are having here?

Carry on.

[longship]

77. Yup. Always. No exceptions. Ever.

:kick:

[G_j]

80. is rape always wrong?

duh

[Limelight]

85. I must've been dreaming when I said...

Some moral absolutes do exist. You know... like rape being wrong? Yeah... like that.

[readmoreoften]

103. Rape is a common torture technique.

Yoo, the man who wrote Bush's torture legislation, is in support of crushing an infants testicles in front of his parents to obtain a confession. Any culture that is capable of such irrational barbarity probably doesn't know how to discern a threat from a non-issue.

[Redstone]

121. Perhaps "limelight" should look at your username again. It would benefit him to

read more often instead of watching TV, don't you think?

Redstone

[G_j]

145. yes they do

and I cannot perceive how anyone who would consider rape a moral line not to be crossed, would not also consider torture unacceptable. And yes rape is a form of torture.

[QuestionAll...]

81. of course it is always wrong...

when it's government sanctioned.

Personally, if I captured someone I strongly suspected knew where my kidnapped child was.... well, that's another story. Fortunately I have never been to that darkest of places, but there's a chance I would risk being really wrong. that's the only slack I can give you on this.

[Terri S]

84. I don't mean to be insulting

so please don't take it that way. It really just makes me terribly sad. Never in my life did I ever think I'd ever see any good, decent human being justify torture EVER!

Sometimes I truly wonder if we really are evolving.. and if so, into what?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. No, not quite, but it should always be illegal.

The fraction of situations where torturing someone would be justified is so low that there is not standard apart from "don't do it" that wouldn't result in far more harm than good.

If you think something isn't important enough to justify going to jail yourself for, it's *certainly* not important enough to justify torturing someone for.

[LittleClarkie]

88. But torture is a really lousy way to try and get information

Not only is it wrong, but it doesn't work. Someone who is being tortured will tell you ANYTHING they think you want to hear.

So I'd say that there are far better ways for us to get info than to resort to something which is not only against our American values but also ineffective.

[Cleita]

89. "24" has no basis in reality. It stretches credibility to the limit and

beyond. In the real world hurting someone who can't fight back, no matter how noble you may believe the cause to be, is always wrong.

Any course in ethics teaches that it's never right to justify the means because the ends are noble.

[Ksec]

91. Yes, because its unreliable and

it takes civilisation back to the stone age.

No torture, never.

[QuestionAll...]

93. would it be wrong to force people to be medical experiments...

... after all, there's a possibility of saving millions...

nah, didn't think so...

[Ian David]

94. If it's worth torturing someone to force them to talk, then it's worth going to jail to torture them

American soldiers and intelligence officers have pledged to risk-- or even sacrifice-- their lives in the service of their country.

If you think someone has knowledge of a bomb about to go off and kill thousands, and if you really think that torturing them is both effective and necessary to prevent it, then you must be willing to turn yourself in to law enforcement to justify your actions, and to submit to the proper punishment-- whether you were right or wrong, and whether you failed or succeeded.

Everyone-- even a terrorism suspect-- is innocent until proven guilty. And until that person is proven guilty, their rights are worth every single bit as much as yours.

If you're not willing to risk going to jail to torture someone-- if it's not worth putting your own self at risk-- then it is also not worth putting a suspect at risk, either.

[Limelight]

99. An interesting point...

Someone else said something similar. I would say that chances are though, if your instinct was correct and you saved thousands, the chances of a jury of your peers sending you to jail would be slim to none.

But I agree with you point.

[Zodiak]

162. A very good point

an individual citizen can break the law in the service of doing some kind of perceived "good", but that citizen MUST be willing to accept the consequences of breaking the law.

As an example, if someone rapes my wife and I know where they are, I would go "Slingblade" on them. I'd call the cops, an ambulance, and a hearse, happily await my punishment, and eat biscuits with mustard.



As far as the OP, no, there is no circumstance when it should be legal to torture.

[Judi Lynn]

95. The writers on that FOX SHOW, who are friends of RUSH LIMBAUGH,

have been using reliance on torture as a viable tool from the first, possibly even the first season. It looks like a deliberate attempt by right-wing backers of the show, the people pulling the strings, to mold public perception in favor of torture, by pleading its case over and over, hoping to desensitize the public through repetition, showing the hero's acceptance of the practice, and, in fact, personally living just fine through multiple sessions of torture HIMSELF, just fine, leaving the complete drooling fools among us to think there are no lasting effects. (That's not what shattered victems of right-wing torture in South America have indicated.)

Only the most disfunctional minds would be influenced to favor torture.

On edit:

Found a reference some of the posters on this thread may find interesting, concerning an event attended by Rush Limbaugh and some of the "24" personel.

Limbaugh began by blaming the "drive-by" media for constraining American interrogation techniques. He wanted to know what "24" taught us about how to act in the ticking time bomb scenario. He was told that in real life the ticking time bomb scenario does not occur and the panelists could not think of one instance in history in which it had occurred. That was the high point of the discussion. A discussion about fiction then became more and more disconnected from reality. The actors and writers protested that "24" was only a television show and not reality, but Limbaugh seemed to find hidden meaning in the "optimistic" plotlines of the show. He found that "24" portrayed America at its best and underscored the need for harsh interrogation techniques. In "24", America always wins in the War on Terror.

According to Limbaugh, the media is largely to blame for the negative impression of America around the world. He found solace and more "reality" in "24" than in real life. That, I have to say, is typical of the reality challenged crowd at the head of this Administration. Finding reality too difficult to cope with and slightly off script, they are content with basking in the fictional successes of shows like "24" in the War against Terror.

The thought that a discussion of a television show was being taken so seriously by conservatives, and the notion that it was more important for the Secretary of Homeland Security to attend this function than work on national security issues, underscores how far astray this Administration and its backers have gone from the thin thread of reality.
(snip/...)

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/06/24/what-would-jack-bauer-do/

[Ian David]

104. On the other hand, at the end of the last season, they arrested the president.

Pretty good for a show written by people who go on vacations (sex tourism?) to countries known for child prostitution with Rush Limbaugh.

[Judi Lynn]

112. How ABOUT that one? Surprised the hey outta me, too. Never expected it.

Didn't know they had it in them.

Here's a list of the ones who accompanied Rush in his quest for "romance:"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html



Hope it wasn't necessary to torture people to get Rush dates!

[beachmom]

131. Hollywood is the #1 cheerleader for torture, aren't they?

Think of all the cop shows and all the suspense thrillers. Torture was always that last resort that they always indulged in --- and it WORKED! The torture saved people's lives. The interrogator had a few moments of self reflection of whether it was wrong or not, but by the end of the movie or episode, all was forgotten because the good guys won.

They should be lobbied to end all depictions of torture, except historical ones (like the gulags and the Nazis). Perhaps the next generation could grow up not thinking torture was okay.

[Union Thug]

146. Hey, Dirty Harry did it, and found out where 'the girl' was...

Too late, so sad.

And if Dirty Harry could do it, we should all be able to. Fuckin' neighbor won't tell me where he put my lawn mower!!! break out the anal pear!

[readmoreoften]

100. Well the examples you give are from a television show.

In real life, it doesn't fucking work. IT-DOESN'T-FUCKING-WORK.

If you are asking questions like this, you haven't studied the problem. In Uzbekistan, we are funding a regime that is boiling peasant farmers to death if they refuse to sign fabricated lists of names of UK and US "terror suspects" that these people have never met. These false confessions are in turn used by the government to detain and torture whoever they want. My source? The former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan who just wrote a book on the subject after quitting his post and giving up his career.

[Ian David]

106. If you're ever tortured, have a list of Republican acquaintances you can name...

as co-conspirators.

Also, have a credible terrorist plot in mind, just in case you need something you can confess to under torture. Every innocent person should keep SOMETHING in mind, in case they need to confess to SOMETHING to make the torture stop.

The real terrorists have two sets of plans in their heads-- the real ones and a fake one.

Under torture, the real terrorists can just divulge the details of the fake plot. It will be corroborated by any other real terrorist, who has memorized details of the same "decoy threat."

Meanwhile, "the ticking time-bomb" goes un-thwarted, as two or more terrorists both share similar stories, and waste thousands of man hours sending agents on a wild goose chase.

Or, better still-- there could be "decoy agents," who honestly think they're involved in a real terrorist plot, but have actually been set-up by their handlers to get captured. Again, to send agents chasing more red herrings-- and the "ticking time-bomb" goes un-thwarted.

[readmoreoften]

117. Terrorists aren't that smart, you America Hater.

I mean, stop giving the Terrorists ideas, Frenchie.
I mean, it will too work, Cheese-Eater.

[Ian David]

133. The terrorists were trained by professional CIA operatives.

And they think about terrorism 24/7.

I'm sure that some terrorist somewhere has already thought of any crazy idea I could possibly come up with-- even the idea of using breast implants to hide explosives.

I'm not gonna be teaching them anything new.

[pretzel4gore]

101. the tough private eye guy on the 'simpsons'

had a better idea. plead with them, whine, cry, insist on the info, ply em with rum etc, until they answer!
it's gotta work, eventually!

[lukasahero]

102. Simply put: Yes

[shanti]

113. ALWAYS wrong

no ifs, ands and buts :(

[Redstone]

120. Is confusing a TV show with real life ALWAYS idiotic?

Redstone

[beachmom]

122. Yes, it is always wrong. And no, TV is not reality.

We are where we are in Iraq in part due to bad information extracted from prisoners who were tortured -- they claimed there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that he had WMD . . . . torture is a very bad way to get good info.

The ticking bomb scenario DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT IN THE MOVIES AND ON TV. How in the world would ANYONE know there was a bomb to go off? No way that would happen.

Say, this scenario DID occur -- well, then, the interrogator could torture knowing FULL WELL that he could wind up in jail because it should ALWAYS be against the law. Then if by any chance the torture saved millions of lives, maybe he would be acquited at his trial.

But make no mistake about it -- as soon as you allow torture for the ticking bomb scenario, torture becomes more and more acceptable, until interrogators feel they MUST torture or they'll be in trouble with the higher ups for "not doing enough".

We signed the Geneva Conventions, which were set up after WWII due to the awful crimes against humanity perpetrated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Since America has fallen from grace (and believe me, it has), the world is in a moral freefall. If we don't lead the fight for human rights, then nobody does.

Patrick Leahy is now working on righting this wrong.

[Pithlet]

123. Yes. Torture is always wrong.

Always.

[soothsayer]

125. Some say 24 was designed to make us comfortable with torture.

We're always being manipulated, our wee little minds are being shaped and led into new paradigms that will set us up for whatever the powers-that-be have planned. Interesting theory, and if true, it totally worked in your case. So if it's true...what are other shows (like Survivor, for instance) prepping us for?

[beachmom]

132. You know, I gave up watching it after the first season because

in the 2nd season they had a scene where the terrorists were torturing somebody. I just thought -- forget this, I'm not spending my leisure time watching such horrible violence especially when there are real terrorists and war out there. I never watched it when Jack was torturing anyone. Glad I didn't.

[Zhade]

126. Yes. Always.

NT!

[LWolf]

127. Yes. It is always wrong.

No twisted labyrinth of fictional possibilities changes that.

In my book, hate is always wrong. Violence is always wrong. Nothing can or will legitimately justify it.

[mondo joe]

130. The fact that you can ONLY think of a hypothetical indicates how little

basis in reality you've got for your position.

[Gwerlain]

134. Oh, and for the record...

I was EXTREMELY unhappy with that episode, particularly coming on the heels of the Abu Ghraib scandal. I felt that it was attempted justification of the scandal, and nearly stopped watching the program as a result.

However, it forced me to consider these moral/ethical/value questions very carefully, and I wound up going back to college textbooks, and doing a lot of study. And I think that redeemed it for me. I nevertheless remain quite conflicted about it, and have an abiding suspicion of "24" and the underlying (and yes, I did mean the pun) motivations of its script writers.

[baldguy]

136. Yes, torture is always wrong.

It dehumanizes both the victim and the perpetrator.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

137. ...

[hsher]

138. Always

[AZBlue]

140. Wish I could say yes, but I can't: and here's a question for anyone who can:

You and Osama Bin Laden in a room for 10 minutes. He's is restrained and can't touch you. You have whatever means of torture you want and absolutely no one will know what you did or blame you for it ever.

For me, he'd be in some sorry shape at the end of that 10 minutes.

[uppityperson]

141. that's not torture, that's revenge. Sort of same but different.

hurting someone to get "information" is torture, or to get them to behave some way by physically, emotionally, etc, hurting them is torture. This would be a case of revenge, plain and simple. No info looked for, no change of behavior wanted. Just revenge.

[AZBlue]

142. I see your point. Both are acceptable definitions of torture (I looked it up to be sure)

but maybe the OP was just referring to the pain-for-information definition.

[flying_monkeys]

148. Yes, it is ALWAYS wrong.

This is one absolute I will back.



ALWAYS, no matter who/what/when/where/why or how.



The ends do NOT ever justify the means when it comes to torture. PERIOD.

[ContraBass Black]

150. Torture makes people talk, but it doesn't make them tell the truth.

And that "ticking time bomb" scenario with only one source is the absolute worst time to torture, because that's when accurate information is essential.

If it comes to that and the terrorist can't be bought or dissuaded, a lot of people are going to die, because torture or no torture, the details necessary to foil the plot will not be forthcoming.

[treestar]

170. One thing people can always do is protect what is in their mind

they can resist torture to the utmost, and it has been done - doesn't matter whether the person or what they know is good or evil. A human being's mind is his own.

The stupid thing is, in these scenarios, why does it never occur to people that if you really want someone to tell you something they know, then about the worst foot to start off on would be the negative.

Geez, at least try being super nice. That might kick in a conscience and might work.

[misternormal]

155. Torture is ALWAYS wrong... n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

156. only if it is safe, sane and consensual play... oh wait, wrong torture.

well, it depends on how evil you truly want to be. torture could be justified, just like any evil, in a myriad of ways. could be stretched to justify miraculous life-saving intel of guaranteed 100% veracity (read: utter fantasy land bullshit -- and i'm rather partial to fantasy land, too), or it could be justified for mere recreation and entertainment, or justified for artistic exploration. but it'd always be wrong.

please remember the old saying, the path to hell is paved with good intentions... justification is a dangerous thing; it is the process of deliberate self-conditioning. and using such a powerful tool (and power corrupts, y'know) to condition yourself can easily lead to abuse such as self-deception from the truth. noting how through the ages people felt "justified" to do many a vengeful and amoral thing, it would be wiser to study the process of justification more than using to try to find a loophole in what is obviously evil (and useless to boot, but that won't stop people trying to justify using it).

[and-justice-for-all]

157. Yeah, but Waterboarding isnt torture....

..Just kidding. Torture is vial and barbaric, such medieval practices should have been left in the Dark Ages.

[Casablanca]

158. You're not one to walk away from Omelas, are you?

Or did you think that the people who agree with your "off the books" perception would admit to it?

[Iverson]

164. nice literary reference

and yes, torture is always wrong.

[Bluebear]

159. 160 replies, no recs....maybe not enough "24" viewers here?

<?>

[mmonk]

163. Yes, it's just sadism without getting actionable intelligence

since they will say anything the torturer wants to hear to end the pain or threat of death. Torture presumes the one being torture has information to give.

[LynnTheDem]

165. YES.

Sad that anyone would have to ask such a queston.

[The Count]

166. YES. ALWAYS. NO MATTER WHAT TV SEZ.

because, 1st - it's immoral.
Second: it's ineffective.
Put the TV remote down and ask yourself: how many terraists did Ashcroft & Gonzalez catch? How many terrorist plots (real) did they foil? Theh used torture and the answer is : zero.

[SammyWinstonJack]

167. Is this a trick question?

:eyes:

[VelmaD]

168. you are messed up in the head

Basing your opinion on torture on a tv show is fucked up and irational in the extreme.

Maybe instead you should do some actual research on what the experts know and say about how torture doesn't work before you open your mouth on the subject again.

[treestar]

169. Yes.

It is always wrong. There is always the chance that the victim did not know anything, for one thing. Then what do you do, apologize?

One cannot know or force the mind of another.

[leftofthedial]

171. yes, it is always wrong . . . UNLESS

a republican 24 fan is strapped to the table

then it is required

[Greyhound]

172. Unequivocally, absolutely, 100% affirmative. It is not only wrong,

it is useless. Only those with the sick desire to inflict destruction on others advocate it.

To the original poster, wake up! You are buying into a lie, and if the lie is allowed to stand it will be our undoing.

[Doctor_J]

176. It's like the death penalty - doesn't work

Since you like fiction, you'll probably remember the scene in Resovoir Dogs when Chris Penn tells Mr. Blonde (paraphrase), "If you'd tortured him long enough, he would have confessed to the Kennedy assassination".

[porphyrian]

177. Torture NEVER gives you reliable intelligence.

Sure, the tortured person may tell you some truth or the truth as they understand it, but the only thing that's certain is that they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop, and you can get intelligence that accurate by guessing. Torture, like a funeral, has little to do with the person the party's for and everything to do with how it effects everyone else in attendance.

[imperial jedi]

178. torture is never justified.

n/t

[Moderator]

180. locking...

This is flamebait.