Torture
 

Is torture ever acceptable?

Imagine this scenario

Do you authorise it?

Yes, he's endangering the lives of possibly thousands

Never ever ever ever ever

Sure, I'd waterboard the **** out of him.

actually how much torture are we talking? I wouldn't stab him or anything, perhaps just pinch his nipples or something

I think you're just as bad as the terrorist then.

You could have stopped a bomb going off but chose not to.

No never.

Yes, it is expectable. I would use Chinese water torture personally

Do the forum member know how to water board? I know how to do it and frankly to put someone thru that would destroy me. I don't think I could do it.

EDIt: Thinking about it that would be a good question., Would you torture someone to get information out of them?

Even if it meant saving the lives of the people you love?

And I've seen it in a couple of movies, I'm not sure how accurate it was. One of the films was Zero Dark Thirty, that changed my opinion on torture.

the most honest answer I can give you is - I dont know.

no because that group don't seem that pro as the leader be got

*waterboards michael21*

:joker:

dye gg hair pink

know everyone going to called you green as i not good at dyeing :fist::fist::fist:

No, torture is never acceptable, once a country decides to torture someone, its set itself off on a dark path. See American and the UK post-9/11.

That is the question?

Again the most honest answer I can give you - I don't know. Water boarding can screw people up for 15 -20 years. It would depend on the situation.

No because if someone is tortured and they know nothing it's disgusting. If they are screaming for their life that they know nothing, so the torture gets worse, I think that's terrible.

I might try sleep depravation before I pulled their nails out...

Spot on!:thumbs:
Us and very much more so the Americans don't have right on our side any more. Once you start coming up with ways to avoid having to uphold human rights treaties that you have clearly signed up to then you're *****ed and have no grounds to complain when someone wants to do appalling things to you.
The things that have been done by the US and to a lesser extent the British in Iraq and Afghanistan to people (very often completely innocent people) supposedly in the name of peace and freedom (as if!) are beyond disgusting and totally reprehensible.

What what goes around comes around. You can't do terrible things to people and not expect it to come back around to you!

..I think there was once a thread about what makes us 'civilised'...for me, one of the /a huge thing would be that I wouldn't torture someone under any circumstances...that makes me responsible for the deaths of many..?...maybe and that would be something that I would have to live with..(or die with..)..but the responsibility or how I would rationalise it would be that of the person who had placed the bombs whose torture I was being asked to authorise...would it make me any better than him, if I authorised it and I would never authorise anything that I wouldn't or couldn't personally do myself, anyway...

The question asks is torture acceptable in the instance where it is known the person captured 'knows' where the bomb is.

I'd normally say no to torture but if they were arrogant enough to state they knew where the bomb was then I would reluctantly support getting that vital info out of them with some torture if they were not cooperating without it.

has anyone read the op?

the facts are!, its a nuclear bomb!, not your every day bomb that only kills a few hundred.

the torture of this scum bag will produce the location of this bomb so it can be made safe.

in life we have to make difficult decisions, not many on here can see the big picture only focusing on them selves.

"You are advised that torture is guaranteed to
produce the information needed to
ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe"


Yes

The scenario is always flawed, because torture never actually works. So it's one thing to ask whether torturing someone could prevent the deaths of thousands, but it's not a reflection on how these things play out.

People who are being tortured will generally do and say anything to get the torture to stop, regardless of what they do or don't know, so what generally happens in cases of torture, is that the perpetrators end up with a load of false information, which, if you're on a tight deadline to prevent a bomb going off is the last thing you need.

It's just an impossible scenario that is always viewed over simplistically.

:hugesmile:he might like that though,Jake.

If it was going to get information that would save thousands of lives then yes without a doubt

Yeah I agree, if we were strictly talking about the OP where torturing is "guaranteed to produce the information needed" then I would say it was acceptable but the trouble with torture is that none of the information you get through it can be guaranteed

I'd much rather have highly skilled interrogators who are good with psychology and stuff

I think you're just as bad as the terrorist then.

I don't think torture would be all that effective, if the leader is committed enough to such a cause that they'd nuke an entire city then torturing them won't produce results. You would have to get hold of one of their subordinates, they would be more likely to talk then the mastermind behind it all.

Like Nathan said, the psychological approach would be best.

If it meant saving the lives of my loved ones, I'd do it myself. But then I'm a bit extremist like that: if given a choice between my family (direct, my partner and children, not parents or extended family) dying OR nuking the entire planet with us safe in a shielded self sufficient bubble, I'd hit the red button without a second thought.

As for it being a norm for the authorities - never. An individual case being justified is very different from making it an easy option. Basically I would say, never legalise it. Send the person authorising torture, and the torturer, to prison for 10 years after the event. That way, if they truly feel that its worth it, they'll sacrifice those 10 years for the greater good - but no one is going to start doing it as a matter of course.

So really the question isn't "does stopping a nuke justify the torture of one definitely guilty man" - which in my opinion, it does - it's "are the consequences of opening the flood gates of legalised torture worth it". They probably arent.

Torture one fella to save the lives of thousands? Yes 100%

You Are Most Wise

the op situation is a no brainer.
torture does work, break a person and they will give you what you want, if you're torturing someone that has no regard for inocent life then you have the green light in my book.

some people have the courage to do what has to be done.

dying is easy, its living thats hard.

That's just cliche-laden wishful thinking. Torture doesn't work, and there is evidence to back that up. In fact, th evidence and data actually shows that you end up with loads of false information. Believe it or not, that's just the way it is.

It actually takes far more courage not to torture someone, than it would to torture them in that instance.

If the scenario in Josy's post is exact - we torture one person to save loads, then that's something I would probably agree with. But that isn't how these things work out at all, and that isn't how torture works either.

NO....torture is never acceptable, for to do so lowers ourselves to the same level as the torturers or terrorists

It's a bit like the Death Penalty.....it can never be right because it lowers us to the same level as the murderers so NO

No way never..........under ANY circumstances !!!!!

I didn't think of that, that would be thee ideal option before torture imo