President Trump advocates the use of Torture (again)

I know people are probably getting rather sick of Trump threads (according to Ctrl + F there's 15 threads on the first page of News & Current Affairs alone) but I do think it's important to point out that the new POTUS has once again publicly suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency should be free to use methods such as waterboarding against terrorist suspects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/waterboarding-absolutely-works-donald-trump-discusses-torture/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

President Trump appears to be under the illusion that torture "absolutely works". I do wonder if he's deliberately cherry-picking the views of those he knows he agrees with on this issue as there's plenty of security experts who disagree.

I'm usually happy to defend the security services but I think the use of torture & so called "black sites" abhorrent. My reasons why are both from a humanitarian point of view but also because "evidence" obtained under torture is by no means true. Afterall, surely the person being waterboarded just wants the punishment to end ASAP so is quite probably going to make up information. Some truth may be obtained but I strongly believe that it cannot be trusted & that the organisations who use torture are little better than groups like Da'esh, Al-Qaeda, the MSS & histrionically the KGB; America & the rest of the West should aim to be better than those barbaric organisations & therefore sinking to their level should not be allowed.

Feel free to criticise my POV; I understand that there are circumstances that are often portrayed in the media such as the "Ticking Timebomb Scenario" where some of you may be tempted to sympathise with the idea of torturing a suspect in an attempt to save lives but quite frankly it is a rather unrealistic premise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username878267

Original post by Mathemagicien

I'm no fan of Trump, but I believe that torture should absolutely be allowed if it works. Whether or not it is remote, the "Ticking Timebomb Scenario" is always a possibility, and when potentially hundreds, or thousands, of lives are at stake, who cares about a terrorist's feelings? We shouldn't take chances with hundreds of lives just to claim the moral high ground.

The problem is that I am not convinced that it does work.

The Ticking Time Bomb scenario is a fallacy.
It cannot exist in real life.

Sad!

The CIA themselves have concluded that torture does not work.

Reply 4

username2053059

Original post by Mathemagicien

We have identical opinions on this matter it seems.

Reply 5

username878267

Original post by Mathemagicien

The Ticking Timebomb Scenario: "Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack, that will kill many people, is in the hands of the authorities and that he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured. Should he be tortured?"

Its certainly unlikely, but most definitely possible.

You'd have to be 100% sure an imminent terrorist attack was planned. You'd have to be 100% sure that the person knows where the bomb is. You'd have to be 100% sure that the information they gave would lead to the attack being prevented.

There's no way to be certain of all those things. Nor is there a way to ensure that you are not torturing an innocent person. No terrorist attack has ever been prevented by torture. People will say ANYTHING under torture, even if they have no information.

Reply 6

username2053059

Original post by Mathemagicien

Good, then you can argue my side while I grab some food.

If only my debating skills were as good as yours :moon:

Reply 7

username2053059

Original post by Bornblue

Who says there's a bomb involved?

Reply 8

username878267

Original post by cbreef

Who says there's a bomb involved?

Same logic applies whatever the weapon...

Reply 9

Tempest II

Original post by Mathemagicien

I'm not against the use of interrogation techniques on suspects that involve temporary mind altering drugs like so called "truth serums" but the idea of physical torture to isn't something I can support.
I can't say I care an awful lot about the feelings of a terrorist suspect but until ample evidence is provided, they are exactly that - a suspect. If they are proven guilty then I certainly don't see or agree with the point of torturing them just to gain vengeance.
As for torturing to gain information, as others & I have mentioned, I'd say it's unrealistic to assume evidence given under torture is authentic when the suspect will almost certainly lie or at least embellish the truth in order to stop the pain.

Reply 10

username878267

Original post by Mathemagicien

False, false, false. If there were a 99.99% chance there were an immenent terrorist attack, and the person knew where the bomb was, to risk peoples' lives for that 0.01% chance of innocence is morally abhorrent.

Or you are just being deliberately awkward in being ridiculously pedantic in order to attack my argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Sorry misread.

Trouble is how can you be 99.99% sure you know an imminent attack was planned and 99.99% sure they had the relevant information to stop it?

That just leads to a slippery slope. What if you're 80% sure an attack is planned and only 70% sure you have the right person?

Reply 11

MildredMalone

Waterboarding isn't torture.

Reply 12

SHallowvale

Once again Trump makes a claim that is contrary to the findings of people who know what they are talking about, in this case intelligence experts who have found torture to be ineffective.

Should we really be surprised?