Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

should terrorist be tortured to save innocent lifes? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Axes;28723078]


    In autocracies? They definatly have a reason, even if we see it as illegitemate. They get political dissidents to confess to everything. But here we are speaking of even the bastions of democracy who all engage in certain methods of 'torture' as an information gathering tactic.
    And these 'bastions of democracy' also torture innocent people. See guantanamo bay, in which both the US and the UK were involved in torture of people who have now been released without even being charged.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    This state doesn't torture hundreds of innocent people everyday.
    Don't they? Who defines what is and isn't torture?



    Dude, you can even google it. There's crap loads.
    No, there aren't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    See guantanamo bay, in which both the US and the UK were involved in torture of people who have now been released without even being charged.
    Which doesn't mean innocent, see Control Orders.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ?
    The question that is more useful first ask is the empirical; "Is torturing 'terrorists' for information relating to attacks on 'innocent' citizens/humans/sentient beings a method that is helpful and works?'
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    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.
    I can't think of anything that would actually definitely work. And you'd want to rely on it...

    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?
    Oh, come on, that's an incredibly stupid argument. 'If we catch someone who might be trying to blow up an aeroplane, we can't get him to tell us more about his dastardly plot. Therefore we should let him blow up the plane.'.

    What I'm saying is not that interrogation of suspects is worthless (though even if it was, your argument would of course be false). However, torturing suspects doesn't seem likely to be more valuable than other less horrible methods.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=missygeorgia;28723191]
    (Original post by missygeorgia)

    And these 'bastions of democracy' also torture innocent people. See guantanamo bay, in which both the US and the UK were involved in torture of people who have now been released without even being charged.


    Yes. Bastions of democracy allso kill innocent people, incarcarate innocent people. Cops accidentally kill civilians. By mistake. No one brought into guantanamo is brought in because he is thought as innocent, and innocents are tortured too. It's wrong, no doubt about it, but I wasn't arguing about whether it was good or bad from a normative standpoint, but rather does it bring results? From its use by even the most liberal democracies, by agencies with decades of information extraction experience, they must have some reason. I wonder what it could be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Don't they? Who defines what is and isn't torture?

    The UN, for one.

    (Original post by Renal)
    No, there aren't.
    A search of academic papers just on JSTOR with 'torture' in the title gives me 431 results. Ta da.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Which doesn't mean innocent, see Control Orders.
    Innocent til proven guilty. If they didn't even have the grounds to charge these people, let alone prove them guilty in a trial, these people are legally innocent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axes)
    So, the mere stamp of 'torture' would make you oppose something without checking on what it actually is? Torture is a subjective term, and I would support or oppose something based on what it actually entails. You would agree with me that depriving someone of sleep or making him listen to music 24/7 is not the same as shocking him with electricity or inserting glass into his rectum?

    No I clearly made a distinction.

    I said there must be a a reason for something to be classed as "torture", but if it is then oppose it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think terrorists should have many rights at all, I'd be fine with torturing terrorists..


    ..If the information was reliable. Which it is not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    The UN, for one.
    Where? To the best of my knowledge not even they have actually decided definitively what is and what isn't torture. I am of course happy to be corrected, if you can find this list.


    A search of academic papers just on JSTOR with 'torture' in the title gives me 431 results. Ta da.
    Ta da indeed. I can read hundreds of articles about the physical and psychological effects of trauma, but I can find none of these 431 articles that you claim prove that torture does not work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    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!
    The ultimate torture...but if that doesn't work, it'll move on to the next level: Justin Bieber.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Innocent til proven guilty. If they didn't even have the grounds to charge these people, let alone prove them guilty in a trial, these people are legally innocent.
    Read up on Control Orders and get back to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    I can't think of anything that would actually definitely work. And you'd want to rely on it...
    I don't believe anyone in the intelligence business, ever, relies on a single source - be it documentary, electronic or human.


    Oh, come on, that's an incredibly stupid argument. 'If we catch someone who might be trying to blow up an aeroplane, we can't get him to tell us more about his dastardly plot. Therefore we should let him blow up the plane.'.
    You'll note that this is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.


    What I'm saying is not that interrogation of suspects is worthless (though even if it was, your argument would of course be false). However, torturing suspects doesn't seem likely to be more valuable than other less horrible methods.
    Which is what a lot of people have said, but still nobody has provided the remotest shred of proof.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Only if you can prove the person is holding information. But I guess that's quite hard. So no, I don't think they should be tortured.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To anyone that says terrorists shouldn't be tortured, go watch this film, then get back to me:


    Until you do, you are living with your head in the sand.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Where? To the best of my knowledge not even they have actually decided definitively what is and what isn't torture.
    http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm

    "... 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."


    (Original post by Renal)
    Ta indeed. I can read hundreds of articles about the physical and psychological effects of trauma, but I can find none of these 431 articles that you claim prove that torture does not work.
    except that's obviously not what you asked for. see:

    (Original post by me)
    there's been plenty of academic research into torture. People do PHDs in this sort of thing.
    (Original post by you)
    I've seen two academic papers, one Restricted and one Secret. What have you seen?
    You've gotten confused about what we were discussing.

    that you claim prove that torture does not work.
    Yeah? When did I claim that?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. They are all ********s who should have been butchered upon conception.

    They kill INNOCENT people. They shouldn't have any rights at all in this world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Read up on Control Orders and get back to me.
    No thanks. I very much doubt they'll prove to me that it's guilty until proven innocent.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Which is all rather meaningless since the last sentence excuses acts performed by the state in the interests of law and order. What is more, plenty of what we don't consider torture is can easily be considered to cause physical or mental suffering.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.