Justifying torture

[Dasher]

Although I haven't really had time to keep posting here, I have to respond to this topic.

Torture is never justifiable, ever. You can throw around that crap about it working better, about it "saving" lives, and that it is a good technique for getting answers.

Torture is about one thing and one thing only, vengeance, it is not about saving lives, or protecting people, it's about revenge, and making someone suffer for the things they may have done. It is a premature, infantile, and pathetic attempt to control a situation we feel is out of our control.

When I was young, there was a much older kid that took a toy of mine, he was taller and he stood over me and hung it above my head so I couldn't get it. I finally got so mad I leaped on him and started pounding on him. I got my toy back, but what did I achieve from hitting him, I made myself angry, I probably humiliated him, and I could of gotten my toy back my asking nicely, or telling my mother.

Some people will say that my analogy is off scale. That I'm putting into a conversation a comparison that isn't even comparable. But it is.
Why is it?... One reason... the moment I put my hands on him, I lost the right to consider myself as being on the right side. I was young, and the idea of right and wrong were blurry at best. But I was still able to consider myself as being justified in beating him up.

Are any of you five years old? No you aren't, you are older, people that consider themselves beyond that childish emotion and instinct. But the moment you decide to use that primitive way of control, you lost whatever claim you had to being justified.

Now let us say the police suspect that a person has planted a bomb in a heavily populated building.
Is torturing him justified? No, it isn't. It is morally wrong, there is a possibility that the suspect is innocent, and there is no guarantee that any information you get from him will be correct, he could stall you until the bomb goes off, then he goes to prison, and you don't torture him.

Here are two quotes from Gandhi that explain my point of view. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
And, "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

Wow, torture doesn't look so great now eh?

Then even if he does give you teh right info, he might blow the city up anyways.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

It's not just a Stereotypical American answer. More or less as it is a stereotypical answer in it's self. Look back in time, when then Nazi's we're killing Jewish people because they weren't white. We joined up with Britain (I may be wrong on that), France, Canada, etc. So it's basically a stereotypical mankind answer. That's all we've done throughout history, is fight fire with fire.

Uhmm nooo The Nazis were killing the jewish people due to their religon. Not all jews are black <.<.

I never said they were black, he killed them because they weren't white.

He killed then because he thought they were an inferior race. 😉

But he thought that Caucasians were the superior race. ;D

No, because he killed Caucasian homosexuals.

 

[Dasher]

It's not just a Stereotypical American answer. More or less as it is a stereotypical answer in it's self. Look back in time, when then Nazi's we're killing Jewish people because they weren't white. We joined up with Britain (I may be wrong on that), France, Canada, etc. So it's basically a stereotypical mankind answer. That's all we've done throughout history, is fight fire with fire.

Uhmm nooo The Nazis were killing the jewish people due to their religon. Not all jews are black <.<.

I never said they were black, he killed them because they weren't white.

He killed then because he thought they were an inferior race. 😉

But he thought that Caucasians were the superior race. ;D

No, because he killed Caucasian homosexuals.

Didn't learn that in History. Thanks! :great:

 

[Oaerkae]

Then even if he does give you teh right info, he might blow the city up anyways.

Exactly, he could even send you to the place just in time for it to blow up on you.

 

[Nuke]

Of course you can merely waterboard. Not torturous but still good as interrogation. Even I've been waterboarded...it's not really bad torture...

Besides that I believe light torture (Not the slow cutting up of their body parts while still attached to the body until they die) is just.

ALSO Hitler killed everyone who wasn't Aryan. Of course, he's an idiot who made up the Aryan race.

He then had experiments to create the "Master Race," which is why sci-fi super soldiers started.

I know my war history better than all of you.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Even I've been waterboarded...it's not really bad torture...

I can guarantee that if you are saying that you have NOT been warterboarded. All Marines that go through that as preventive measure (in case they get captured by the enemy, they already know what the torture is like) will tell you that it is the worst form of torture. People have even died from waterboarding. You probably just soaked your head in water for a few seconds.
[/quote]

I know my war history better than all of you.

I highly doubt that.

 

[fantanoice]

Although I haven't really had time to keep posting here, I have to respond to this topic.

Torture is never justifiable, ever. You can throw around that crap about it working better, about it "saving" lives, and that it is a good technique for getting answers.

Torture is about one thing and one thing only, vengeance, it is not about saving lives, or protecting people, it's about revenge, and making someone suffer for the things they may have done. It is a premature, infantile, and pathetic attempt to control a situation we feel is out of our control.

When I was young, there was a much older kid that took a toy of mine, he was taller and he stood over me and hung it above my head so I couldn't get it. I finally got so mad I leaped on him and started pounding on him. I got my toy back, but what did I achieve from hitting him, I made myself angry, I probably humiliated him, and I could of gotten my toy back my asking nicely, or telling my mother.

Some people will say that my analogy is off scale. That I'm putting into a conversation a comparison that isn't even comparable. But it is.
Why is it?... One reason... the moment I put my hands on him, I lost the right to consider myself as being on the right side. I was young, and the idea of right and wrong were blurry at best. But I was still able to consider myself as being justified in beating him up.

Are any of you five years old? No you aren't, you are older, people that consider themselves beyond that childish emotion and instinct. But the moment you decide to use that primitive way of control, you lost whatever claim you had to being justified.

Now let us say the police suspect that a person has planted a bomb in a heavily populated building.
Is torturing him justified? No, it isn't. It is morally wrong, there is a possibility that the suspect is innocent, and there is no guarantee that any information you get from him will be correct, he could stall you until the bomb goes off, then he goes to prison, and you don't torture him.

Here are two quotes from Gandhi that explain my point of view. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
And, "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

Wow, torture doesn't look so great now eh?

I see where you're coming from, but it's obvious that the world isn't perfect enough to have a cool enough head for those situations, seeing as we've been brought up with the 'eye for an eye' and 'karma' values.

As for torture, it is 'justified' if the person being tortured has done something of equivalent 'badness' (sorry, can't think of a better word atm), though I can't give an example of when it would be the most ideal way to go about things. In all, it can be justified, but is very rarely (perhaps never) the best course of action.

 

[Oaerkae]

I see where you're coming from, but it's obvious that the world isn't perfect enough to have a cool enough head for those situations, seeing as we've been brought up with the 'eye for an eye' and 'karma' values.

As for torture, it is 'justified' if the person being tortured has done something of equivalent 'badness' (sorry, can't think of a better word atm), though I can't give an example of when it would be the most ideal way to go about things. In all, it can be justified, but is very rarely (perhaps never) the best course of action.

Well, that's debatable in my opinion. You can have a cool head if you choose to. We have been brought up for those ideas, but they are things we must be willing to change.

Well, if that is your opinion, I'll live with it. But in my opinion, torture is never justified, for any reason. It is vengeance, nothing else.
Vengeance masqueraded under the ideal of justice is only a way of assuring ourselves that we are doing the right thing, when we know inside we aren't.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Torture does not work. 24 is not real life, even though I love the show so much and it's the best on TV in my view, it still is totally unjustifiable in any respect.
Our country has a constitution, an agreement between the people of the country and the government. Cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. It is illegal. Everyone deserves equal rights.
Infact, most studies have proven that torture doesn't work. Tons of FBI/CIA interrogators have come out and said thats ineffective and actually hinders the process of interrogation. Do some readings on it, and you'll find out.

Oh, and Agent, torture is really cool to see on 24, I'll admit, but, even Kiefer Sutherland says that it's wrong and shouldn't be done.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/US_Army_I ... ch/3662740

 

[JedoChristo]

In mostly all areas, torture is illegal. Lets look at a scenario. A bomber has planted bombs in a residential area. If the bombs go off, hundreds of people will die. The bomber was caught, and is being detained. The bomber is refusing to talk, and has asked for a lawyer. One of the officers suggested they torture the man either by torturing him, or bringing in his wife and torturing him that way.

Is torture justifiable if it helps saves hundreds of people?

I think, if you have the balls to plant bombs, with the intent to kill people, then you deserve to be tortured. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for torture being illegal, HOWEVER, torture can be justified if it saves hundreds of lives.

But you already saved hundreds of lives by catching him before it was too late no?

No one knows what is done to terrorists that get caught before they do what they had to do.