# We not only have a right to use torture. We have a duty



## Ken Morgan (Feb 15, 2010)

Another interesting article. 


_Torture is revolting. A man can retain his human dignity in front of a firing squad or on the scaffold: not in a torture chamber. Torturers set out to break their victim: to take a human being and reduce him to a whimpering wreck. In so doing, they defile themselves and their society. In Britain, torture has been illegal for more than 300 years. Shortly after torture was abjured, we stopped executing witches: all part of a move away from medieval legal mores and their replacement with the modern rule of law. Until recently, at least in the UK, torture and witch-finding appeared to be safely immured in a museum of ancient atrocities._


_Yet men cannot live like angels. However repugnant we may find torture, there are worse horrors, such as the nuclear devastation of central London, killing hundreds of thousands of people and inflicting irreparable damage on mankind's cultural heritage. We also face new and terrible dangers. In the past, the threat came from other states. If they struck at us, we knew where to strike back. Now, we can almost feel nostalgic for mutually assured destruction._
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ht-to-use-torture-we-have-a-duty-1899555.html


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

Interesting point of view, I wanted to read more of the readers comments but it won't load properly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 15, 2010)

If torture were efficacious, one could argue that the ends justify the means, using that old _"if one man tortured saves thousands, I say do it"_ argument.  I'd still disagree with it, but at least I recognize the argument.

Torture often produces false information.  People who are being tortured will say whatever they believe will make the torture stop. They may tell the truth, or they may lie if they either do not possess the information demanded of them, or believe that their torturer wants to hear something else.

If it doesn't produce results, then there isn't a valid reason to do it.  If the results are suspect, then there isn't a valid reason to do it.


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 15, 2010)

What sort of torture techniques were you thinking of?

I have heard the idea of there being 'good pain' and bad pain.  Kindof a stretch but when a woman gives birth, when soldiers are drilled or people push their limits to be stronger it's kindof a good pain or at least produces good results and is nonthreatening to ones wellbeing for the most part.  The paradiso of pain
Then there's a sortof purgatory like say, jail. Let's face it, it's not the Hilton in some jails.  Basically, it's not designed to torture really, but it's obviously torturous enough being incarcerated. 
So when someone is doing you harm and you cannot fight or flee, that is truly a terrible thing.  
But i think that it is not effective to use torture in most instances.  I have heard of some techniques of conditioning as a substitute for torture but conditioning also can be a part of torture.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 15, 2010)

Who gets to torture? Who gets to decide who needs to be tortured? Who gets to decide what is and is not torture? Who gets to decide how much torture is enough and how much is too much? 

And from where do they derive these powers?


-Rob


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 15, 2010)

I think they ask highschool teachers.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 15, 2010)

I think it is called enhanced interrogation. Torture is when things go under your finger nails and other things get cut off. Water boarding? I say use holy water, now that would be torture.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 15, 2010)

seasoned said:


> I think it is called enhanced interrogation. Torture is when things go under your finger nails and other things get cut off. Water boarding? I say use holy water, now that would be torture.


Don't Forget: Survivor, American Idol, Americas next Top Model...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 16, 2010)

We tried it in Europe for hundreds of years. Got really good at it too. Got loads of confessions. Of course it didn't work though, in the long run. But perhaps the US is still too young to have learned this lesson.

I also dislike the phrasing of the original paragraph. The author makes it seem as if you can only do 2 things: torture people or have a nuclear holocaust on your hands.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 16, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> We tried it in Europe for hundreds of years. Got really good at it too. Got loads of confessions. Of course it didn't work though, in the long run. But perhaps the US is still too young to have learned this lesson.
> 
> I also dislike the phrasing of the original paragraph. The author makes it seem as if you can only do 2 things: torture people or have a nuclear holocaust on your hands.



One might recall the US version - the Salem Witch Trials.  We got loads of confessions, too.  People confessed to consorting with the Devil, riding through the sky on broomsticks, having sex with demons, casting spells on people, all sorts of things.   Must have been true, since they confessed under torture.  I can see where torture would be useful, eh?  Nothing but facts there.


----------



## stephen (Feb 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If it doesn't produce results, then there isn't a valid reason to do it.  If the results are suspect, then there isn't a valid reason to do it.




This is really the thing. You don't even have to get as far as moral justification because everything I've seen on the subject pretty much says that it's useless.

It's interesting, I read somewhere that in WWII we managed to get the most information out of people with chess games, a cup of coffee, and chit chat. 

Using torture, which is ineffective, also severely damages our ability to claim the more high ground, which has severe impacts on troop morale (us, bad, and theirs, good), popular support of the war (vital in a democracy), and ability to convert hearts-and-minds of the opposing side (basically a necessary victory condition in today's world). 

So, ah, yeah, I can't figure out why we're even getting close to doing it.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 16, 2010)

I don't disagree with the general feeling here boys and girls, but if my son or daughter were in a position where death was a real possible outcome, and the guy in front of me had the information that would save their lives.

Guess what? I'm not playing chess with him, and I'm not giving him a cup of coffee. 

He will tell me all he knows by the time I am done with him.

I challange anyone with children to disagree with me.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 16, 2010)

I don't doubt your resolve in that case, I just doubt your results. Evidence highly supports torture not working.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 16, 2010)

Others will know better then i, but during the 1st Gulf war the two UK airmen who were captured by the Iraqis broke very quickly and told the Iraqis much valid information. They were told afterwards to not worry about it, as everyone breaks under torture.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 16, 2010)

Let me rephrase: Torture isn't 100% effective. How much false information did they give? How long did it take? It's all contextual. I'm not even arguing against EVER using torture, just saying it shouldn't be a "go to" response in all situations.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 16, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> Let me rephrase: Torture isn't 100% effective. How much false information did they give? How long did it take? It's all contextual. I'm not even arguing against EVER using torture, just saying it shouldn't be a "go to" response in all situations.


 
And I agree with this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> He will tell me all he knows by the time I am done with him.



I have no doubt he'll talk.  I also have no doubt the information you receive may or may not be useful.

First, you presume you have the guilty party in front of you; that he has the information you seek.  In war, we do not know if the person we are holding has any information whatsoever, let alone classified and useful information.

Second, you presume they will tell you the truth as opposed to they think you want to know.  People being tortured have a common goal - they want it to stop.  If they think you'll stop torturing them if they say the child is alive and at a bus stop in Toledo, then that's what they'll say.



> I challange anyone with children to disagree with me.



I have no children; can I still disagree?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no doubt he'll talk. I also have no doubt the information you receive may or may not be useful.
> 
> First, you presume you have the guilty party in front of you; that he has the information you seek. In war, we do not know if the person we are holding has any information whatsoever, let alone classified and useful information.
> 
> ...


 
Of course you can Billy!!

But thats it. Given that particular scenario, sorry but I have zero problem torturing anyone. Once we get into changing the different details of the scenario, and start adding what ifs, and such, the justification for torture goes right out the window.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Of course you can Billy!!
> 
> But thats it. Given that particular scenario, sorry but I have zero problem torturing anyone. Once we get into changing the different details of the scenario, and start adding what ifs, and such, the justification for torture goes right out the window.



I don't go by that name, if you don't mind.

With regard to your original scenario, I'm not playing games of 'if' and 'what if' and so on.  You said it yourself, _"the guy in front of me had the information that would save their lives."_ How often does that happen?  We pick up people on the battlefield, are we certain that they have information that will save lives?

And you didn't really answer the main question, which is how do you know that any information you get from the person you torture is truthful?

What you're saying is that as a parent, you feel a strong duty to protect your children, and you'd go to any lengths to do so.  I get that, I understand.  I ask simple questions.  Given your proposed scenario, how do you know _"the guy sitting in front of me"_ is the guy who has that information, and how do you know he is telling the truth?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 16, 2010)

No worries Bill, my Dad has gone by Billy/Willy for the last 72 years. After about a month of knowing me, many people refer to me as Kenny. One of my best friends is a Billy too. 

But I did answer the main question; depending on the conditions you wish to implement, there can be different linear extremes of the same thing. In my *original* scenario, the conditions are, such that you know the person in front of you does have the information necessary to save your child. I never said that torture, would be my first choice in getting information from the person in question, but I would have no hesitation as to its use if my first tactics, (depending on the time frame, bribery, playing on their humanity), were ineffective. 

In every other scenario the conditions change, hence reactions and tactics will change. You&#8217;re correct you can never know 100% if the person in question has valuable information, and you can never know if the information being given to you is accurate or not. Information given under torture may be unreliable, but I'd be very surprised if it was all 100% useless.

In any other situation, where the condition are different, except in my &#8220;perfect&#8221; example, I doubt I would employ torture, but I&#8217;ll thankfully never know.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2010)

Thanks, Ken, I appreciate it.  I understand your example better now.

In my case, I reflect back on a Canadian guy who was in the news a couple years ago now.  He was picked up by the US at Kennedy Airport in 2002 and was sent (via infamous 'rendition' flight) to some country like Syria where he was tortured for information.  The Canadian government had apparently mistakenly informed the US that he was on a terrorist watchlist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19mon3.html

If you were that man, how would you feel about the 'duty' to torture?  This for me was the clincher.  I'm sure they got 'information' from him.  And I'm sure his torturers thought they were doing a good thing.

In his case, Canada apparently has given him millions of dollars in compensation.  Of course, I'm not sure that removes the pain of months of torture, and if he had been tortured to death, as sometimes happens, what then?  I think if it were me strapped to that gurney by mistake and having my fingers broken one by one, I'd not be thinking that overall, the system works.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you were that man, how would you feel about the 'duty' to torture?  This for me was the clincher.  I'm sure they got 'information' from him.  And I'm sure his torturers thought they were doing a good thing.
> 
> In his case, Canada apparently has given him millions of dollars in compensation.  Of course, I'm not sure that removes the pain of months of torture, and if he had been tortured to death, as sometimes happens, what then?  I think if it were me strapped to that gurney by mistake and having my fingers broken one by one, I'd not be thinking that overall, the system works.



Yes. They're all in favor of torture until -they- are the ones on the gurney.
_But this is a mistake. I am innocent!..._
Suuuuuure. Now hold still while I hook this up to your testicles.

the other thing to consider of course is that if you torture the wrong guy, chances are good that that person will feel compelled to go after the great satan when he gets out. And if he dies, then his friends and family will likely feel some ill will towards the parties responsible.

I wonder what the head of DHS would confess to when strapped to the gurney in some Syrian or Egyptian hell hole to be tortured with the blessing of the US. And I bet they could get George W to confess that he rigged the Florida dade count, single handedly flew the planes in to both the twin towers and had wild monkey sex with Dick Cheney.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> the other thing to consider of course is that if you torture the wrong guy, chances are good that that person will feel compelled to go after the great satan when he gets out. And if he dies, then his friends and family will likely feel some ill will towards the parties responsible.



Of the people who have been released from Gitmo, apparently a number of them have gone into the terrorism business - whether they were terrorists or not before ending up in Gitmo is another question entirely.  Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but the DoD is even saying that being in Gitmo for that long 'radicalizes' them.  I am sorry if we put innocent people there, but I don't think we should ever let them out now.  I know if I had been put there and I didn't do anything to warrant it, I'd be looking for some payback after being released.

Yeah, get tortured and then cut loose without so much as an apology; I'm not likely to be great pals with the guys who did it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> And I bet they could get George W to confess that he rigged the Florida dade count, single handedly flew the planes in to both the twin towers and had wild monkey sex with Dick Cheney.


 

So he'd tell the thruth 2 out of 3 times. :ultracool


----------

