should terrorist be tortured to save innocent lifes?

Scroll to see replies

I read that in Guantanamo Bay, suspects would be forced to listen to artists like Britney Spears over and over again LOL no-one deserves that!

That's not even funny. Britney is incredible... Bieber on the other hand...

Reply 41

Remarqable M

Original post by Left Hand Drive

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

This!

Reply 42

In2deep

Original post by Axes

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.

Evidence?

Reply 43

Axes

Original post by In2deep

Evidence?

Evidence? This is similar to how people are brought to confess crimes in regular investigations, only far more gruelling. Oh, and most nations on earth do it, so I suppose theres a reason for it.

Reply 44

BrainFactory

Only if they are terrorists (i.e. there is sufficient proof), of course.

Reply 45

In2deep

Original post by Axes

Evidence? This is similar to how people are brought to confess crimes in regular investigations, only far more gruelling. Oh, and most nations on earth do it, so I suppose theres a reason for it.

Stop assuming. And how many times must you hear it before you accept that when others commit atrocities, it is not a valid excuse to do so yourself. There is a huge difference between regular investigations and torture, call it mild torture of you wish.

It is people like you who are ready to dish out horrendous punishments without even verifying the facts surrounding their "efficiency" (and even if it was efficient, it is still very much immoral) that cause so much pain in this world.

I hope you realise that torture is not acceptable in any circumstances.

Reply 46

User414413

Original post by In2deep

And how many times must you hear it before you accept that when others commit atrocities, it is not a valid excuse to do so yourself.

I thought it was, Islamically speaking. For example, I pour acid on your face. You can ask the court to pour acid on his face, can you not? An eye for an eye and all that. I know the other method of taking blood money or whatnot is more recommended, btw.

I hope you realise that torture is not acceptable in any circumstances.

It is. Obviously on a very small amount of circumstances but it is. For example, I doubt you would ask nicely if knew a neighbour of yours kidnapped your wife and kids, rather you would use your physical strength against him to get the information. The police can't prosecute him because they already tried before but didn't have enough evidence.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 47

Renal

Original post by lawology

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:

What question was being asked? And what techniques were being used.

If you asked these women whether they were witches and then tortured them until they said yes, that's one thing, but if you asked them whether was anything they wanted to tell you about their nocturnal activities activities and they subsequently confessed to having the occasional chat with the devil, that's something entirely different.

In a more contemporary context, you can ask someone whether they're Terry from the Taliban and any fool can make them say yes, but if you want to know who's in their cell or where an ambush has been set up, you need more than a simple yes or no and a more open question, which - if you're careful - won't lead your subject to an answer.

Also, if you're simply hurting someone until they 'confess' it's hardly surprising you'll get misleading results. But modern 'torture' is more about disorientation and confusion than anything else - sleep deprivation, disturbing circadian rhythms, disinformation. That'll get you more reliable results.

Reply 48

Renal

Original post by cannella

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?

They are, on a routine basis. Being a prisoner is fundamentally a degrading, and arguably inhumane, experience, and designed to be so.

Reply 49

Renal

Original post by In2deep

It is people like you who are ready to dish out horrendous punishments without even verifying the facts surrounding their "efficiency" (and even if it was efficient, it is still very much immoral) that cause so much pain in this world.

Aren't you ruling out what might be an efficacious way to prevent mass murder without even verifying the 'facts'?

Reply 50

Renal

Original post by dring

I'm not sure what you mean by 'work around it'. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work...

To your final point, why is that even relevant? If torture doesn't work, it's irrelevant that not torturing also doesn't work. We may as well proceed in the manner that's least horrible and immoral. That is, not torturing.

I can think of plenty of ways to get around the 'people will say anything you want' argument, if you can't you have a pretty poor imagination.

If you assume that people will lie when they're tortured, you have to assume that they'll lie when they're not, so why bother asking terrorist suspects anything - lets let them get on with it?

Reply 51

***Frann***

No, I don't think anyone ever has the right to torture anyone. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to - I've seen reporters talking to known Al Queda terrorists before and admire their self-restraint as I would be tearing them to shreds with my bare hands HOWEVER where can you draw the line? Who gets to decide who is to be tortured and who not? And at the end of the day these people have been bought up like this. What if they suddenly said "should we torture anyone who shows any compassion to animals" because that's what they're against? Could that ever be justified? No, well nor can this in my opinion.
And also, anyone who has ever been in solitary confinement will know that it is one of the worst experiences ever. I was in solitary confinement when I was sectioned about a year ago (and I had a nurse watch my every move without being able to converse with her) and I couldn't wish that upon anyone - no matter what they had done.

Reply 52

jaggedspike

Original post by blackknight

Or should i say should a terrorist be tourted for information that could safe your family member ?

if not

what rights do you think a terrorist should have ?

Better than the death penalty, thats giving them exactly what they want.

Reply 53

mis-shapes

1st thing you've gotta think is - what state or country might consider you a terrorist. We wouldn't like it if the Israeli government tortured people on blockade runners (with food and medical aid) especially as many are British citizens, as they would be seen by the Israeli government as aiding terrorists.

Reply 54

cannella

Original post by Renal

They are, on a routine basis. Being a prisoner is fundamentally a degrading, and arguably inhumane, experience, and designed to be so.

The fact that they are does not imply that they should! Prison is not designed to be degrading, its function is to isolate the criminal from society and insure that he/she doesn't bring any harm to the rest of the population, while creating a deterrent that discourages from committing crime.

If the living condition inside a prison are inhumane then it's a fault of the system that should be rectified. (Which doesn't mean that criminals should live with the same luxuries they had at home, but that lack of freedom is what they were condemned to and brutal treatment is not in any way justified.)

Reply 55

cannella

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

I really, really, really hope this is some form of sarcasm.

Reply 56

Cassandra_Z

If the terrorist were to harm my family and the only way to get information out of them was to torture them, as bad as this sounds, I would do it. They already had the intentions of harming others so as punishment I would only allow torture as the last resort. But there is a certain line to draw, otherwise while trying to save others we would get lost in the mess and end up becoming as low as them.

Also, I don't believe terrorist should have any rights. They withdrew those rights once they had the intentions of hurting others.

Reply 57

User414413

Original post by cannella

I really, really, really hope this is some form of sarcasm.

No, why would it be?

Reply 58

LazyWorseThanInfidel

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.

I would like to hear you say that again if your family was kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured by terrorists and we had a man in prison who is holding information that could lead to their release.