should terrorist be tortured to save innocent lifes?

Scroll to see replies

Without even contemplating the horrific implications of allowing your state to torture whoever it likes, and the moral issues thereof, torture doesn't produce reliable results and aids enemy recruitment. Its a terrible idea.

This. People will confess to anything under torture. Not to mention that studies have shown that extreme stress impairs memory, as the stress can damage the frontal lobe and even create false memories.

Reply 21

JGR

No. (Of course it still happens though.)

Torture is quite rightly illegal and should remain so. Even ignoring all the moral/rights based arguments, it produces dubious results and leads to further resentment and distrust of the bodies doing the torturing.
Also, who are you defining as "terrorists" and "innocent lives"? That is very obviously open to interpretation.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 22

ilickbatteries

I'd rather we publicly executed them. Hang them, draw them, quarter them and stick their heads on a pole.

Reply 23

Elwyn

I think Jack Bauer proved that this is the best method :P

Reply 24

rockrunride

Torture is a crime against humanity. There are no moral mitigations; it is absolutely wrong and no state that performs it can be deemed respectable.

Reply 25

blackknight

Original post by nexttime

Indeed - i doubt any reliable evidence can exist in such an area to prove it one way or another. I don't necessarily submit to the view that 'the intelligence forces do it so it must be the best thing for us' view though either.

I suppose the point is that its not a case of 'torture and get accurate, up to date information' - its more complicated than that. I'll edit my post accordingly.

Comedian James Terryl Bechtol, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.
His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will save just one American life, then I have only three things to say:

Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet

funny

Reply 26

cannella

Original post by nexttime

Without even contemplating the horrific implications of allowing your state to torture whoever it likes, and the moral issues thereof, torture won't always produce reliable results and aids enemy recruitment. Its a terrible idea.

This! This!

God, how can people say yes?

Every human being is entitled to the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wouldn't want the government to use torture if it saved me, my family, my lover or hundreds of lives.

There are other ways, what's the intelligence there for? And honestly, I sincerely doubt any useful information could ever come out of a torture session. Anyone who thinks so has watched too many spy films.

Reply 27

blackknight

Original post by cannella

really =what rights should a terroist have , when his aim is yo kill thousands of innoccent people ?

what other ways are there ?

Reply 28

Dirac Delta Function

I have no moral or ethical objections to torture of terrorists both as a means of extracting information and as a deterrent. What I have a problem with is regulating powers to torture, but I think that's a different problem.

Reply 29

Left Hand Drive

I ve saw that movie too I knew there was extra bombs!

Reply 30

Left Hand Drive

Original post by In2deep

The previous posters who said yes are absolute savages. No to torture in all cases.

You do realise that people confess to anything just to stop the pain right? And even if this was not the case, I would still fully abhor this barbarous act.

This! People are also known to confess to crimes they are not guilty of if they are accused long enough! Well I guess thats mental torture

Reply 31

john_john

Mabe under a ticking bomb scenario, would only work if you knew you had the right person though and it would be best if the public never knew about it - save propaganda. Never as a form of justice.

Ideally not though, your fighting a war of ideologies and you don't win that war by torturing people.

Reply 32

Aj12

Original post by Renal

I've never seen any reliable evidence for this much touted 'fact'.

Surely, if this were the case, the police forces, intelligence agencies and militaries that use it will know this better than the left-wing, and presumably can work around it.

Further, if we assume that asking people questions under torture doesn't work, why do we assume that asking people questions not under torture works any better?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html

Some facts about torture

Reply 33

nexttime

Original post by blackknight

HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will save just one American life, then I have only three things to say:

Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet

funny

That man is clearly very prejudiced against non-americans and muslims. Not funny. I'd like to see how he feels if he is taken from his home at night and tortured with no need for evidence.

Reply 34

In2deep

Original post by Aj12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html

Some facts about torture

Nice link

Reply 35

Remarqable M

someone watches too much 24? No, torture is a very bad idea. It can do more harm than good.

Reply 36

cannella

Original post by blackknight

really =what rights should a terroist have , when his aim is yo kill thousands of innoccent people ?

what other ways are there ?

Let me quote a couple of articles from the UDHR:

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 29
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

So you think criminals should be deprived of these fundamental rights? Where would you draw a line? Is stealing bad enough to justify a withdrawal of their rights or do they have to kill someone? And talking of torture, can they be tortured if they have killed only one person, or do they have to make more victims? What if a terrorist is caught before they placed any bomb, but we knew they were going to - can they be tortured because their aim was to kill people, even if they actually didn't?

Interpol, secret services, etc. all run their own investigations to prevent attacks and fight terrorist cells, and they sure as hell don't use torture as their main M.O.

Reply 37

lawology

Original post by Renal

Of course torture provides unreliable results...Just look at witch hunting in 16th and 17 century Europe. Thousands upon thousands of the accused confessed to being witches after being tortured. Now, unless you are trying to suggest they did indeed have sex with the devil and eat babies this seems to be fairly substantial evidence to prove that torture produces rather unreliable results. :rolleyes:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 38

Axes

Original post by In2deep

Nice link

Yes but not precise. Intense physical torture doesn't allways work because it causes the 'tortured', in many cases, to enter shock. On the other hand, light physical torture like sleep deprivision or psycological torture can indeed get results. The question is whether to apply it, ever, and if the answer is yes, then when, under what extreme circumstances.