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

President Trump advocates the use of Torture (again) Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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...usses-torture/

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sion-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/Tickin..._bomb_scenario
    • Offline

      20
      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.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Sad!
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      The CIA themselves have concluded that torture does not work.
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by Bornblue)
        The Ticking Time Bomb scenario is a fallacy.
        It cannot exist in real life.
        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. Since it is a scenario, not an argument, your use of "fallacy" seems fallacious.
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (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.
        We have identical opinions on this matter it seems.
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (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.
        • Offline

          20
          (Original post by cbreef)
          We have identical opinions on this matter it seems.
          Good, then you can argue my side while I grab some food.
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          (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:
          • Offline

            20
            (Original post by Bornblue)
            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.
            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.
            Offline

            20
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Bornblue)
            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.
            Who says there's a bomb involved?
            • Community Assistant
            Offline

            15
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by cbreef)
            Who says there's a bomb involved?
            Same logic applies whatever the weapon...
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            16
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Mathemagicien)
            x
            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.
            • Community Assistant
            Offline

            15
            ReputationRep:
            (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?
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            Waterboarding isn't torture.
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            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?
            Offline

            14
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by MildredMalone)
            Waterboarding isn't torture.

            It's simulated drowning.That is torture despite all the euthanisms about enhanced interrogation.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (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.
            Spoiler:
            Show




            • Very Important Poster
            Online

            19
            (Original post by 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?
            It doesnt really matter though. It appeals to his voters.
           
           
           
        • 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
          What newspaper do you read/prefer?
          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.