For Americans- Is Torture acceptable?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by welsh, Mar 1, 2005.

  1. billcd

    billcd First time out of the vault

    20
    Sep 15, 2004
    arabs are not people. see? it's that easy. why do you think slavery was so accepted? not white (or not american) = inhuman/animal. animal=ok to torture.
     
  2. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Exitum- if people are not animals than perhaps it's only their humanity that makes them distinctive. When a person gives up or abandons their humanity, they are little more than animals. Think of some of your more unrepetent murderers.

    But what if a society allows and sanction inhumane treatment of fellow human beings?

    Billcd- if your point is that animals are tortured, actually, you might be wrong. A friend of mine is livestock vet and he told me that many animals are kept calm right up to the point of butchering. If you stress a hog, the meat becomes corrupt. Likewise, a cow is usually killed by surprise- a sold thunk to the head with a sledge hammer. Quick and sudden death, not torture.

    One can distinguish what is done to animals as laboratory experiments.


    As for the torture debate. Here's something I heard this morning-
    what is torture

    Sounds like a bit of evasion to me.
     
  3. Aktins Diet

    Aktins Diet It Wandered In From the Wastes

    170
    Mar 8, 2005
    I believe in torture of the guilty.


    Lets do the math

    1 dude= knows where 100 people are kept

    Would you
    a) Let the dude live and not say a word, thus the 100 people die
    B) Torture a man and find the location, get the 100 people

    nother scenario:

    you caught this dude who knows where your dad is being kept and tortured. Are you going to let that dude not tell you, or find out by MAKING him speak?
    Be realistic, i bet a lot of you may say its immoral, but you would do it if push comes to shove. The thing is, it has to be personal.

    Its simple, sacrifice for a greater cause. Its for the benefit for humanity. This is not a question of ethics if the torture is used for the benefit of us.
    Though there are some people who will take advantage of this and abuse it. (Terrorists, politions, etc)

    But that’s life.


    Now on the china thing. I think this is a very important subject.

    I don’t remember the exact quote or source, but one time the Chinese leader once said "Go ahead, drop a couple of nukes, we can lose 300 million lives. Its no biggy."

    China is no push over, and they can send in 5 million strong right away. And those troops RUN! They can travel long distances in short periods of time. (light inflt.)

    We need to approach this with caution. Thx for bring it up. It even went past my mind there for a while.

    I don’t know why people don’t like these kinds of topics, but oh well.
    .
     
  4. Zaij

    Zaij Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 10, 2004
    Tell me, how would you know whether the dude does in fact know where the 100 people are? It's like the death penalty, it's kind of hard to undo once they're proven innocent.


    Same as above.

    Don't you think that torture would destroy someones humanity? Are you going to hire someone who is sadistic and would love to do it anyway, and may withhold results just to have some more fun? Or would you get someone normal, who may have to go into therapy over what they've done?

    And how are you going to stop them? Or is collateral damage ok?

    Yes, torturing people is life (sarcasm :roll: )
     
  5. The Commissar

    The Commissar Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    May 18, 2004
    Wow Atkins, thanks for the narrowminded and short sighted view.

    Its impossible to ever be 100% sure anyone knows anything. Ever notice how innocent people and guilty people all say the same thing?

    "No don't torture me anymore, I swear I don't know anything"

    "Sorry pal, we KNOW you know something, so we will continue to torture you until you tell us"

    "No I don't know anything"

    "See, you said that before, but we don't believe you"


    Is that person innocent or guilty? Do they know or not know? How long can they be held? What if they don't talk? How much torture is acceptable? What if they do talk, but lie to make the torture stop? Remember a little thing called the Inquisition? People would confess to anything just to make the tortures stop. In fact, in every society that has used torture regularly, innocent victems confess once they realize no amount of saying "I don't know anything" will make the torturing stop. In fact, many will even condemn other innocent people, just to shift attention away from themselves.

    But of course, its for the greater good right? One potato doesn't equal one hundred potatoes right?

    Now, in times of war there are cases where an individual PROBABLY knows something you want them to tell you. However, torture is evil. Always. Against civilians or against soldiers, torture is an evil thing. If you are willing to accept the committing of evil to prevent more evil (And this is very likely entirely hypothetical for you, because I doubt you will ever torture anyone or be tortured yourself) then knock yourself out. But don't ever try to justify it as "For the greater good" because no matter what your reasons are, its an act of destruction directed against someone who can't fight back.

    Several people mentioned losing ones humanity. Thats a surpringsly easy thing to lose. Especially when people do not even try to justify the actions they take. Humanity is a gift enjoyed by people who don't spend a lot of time in Hell. Its so much easier to let people who don't feel anything, or feel only hate, do the dirty work isn't it? Especially against those "guilty" people who are equally devoid of humanity.

    All that said, on a governmental level, I can never accept Torture as a policy. However in reality, I will and have, seen it justified acceptably to me on a personal level. This makes me a bad person. I do not mind.
     
  6. Aktins Diet

    Aktins Diet It Wandered In From the Wastes

    170
    Mar 8, 2005
    Ok, if you know this person works for who ever told your dad, he obviously has Intel.

    Also, WHY torture people who are not linked to a war crime or some terror attack? Really. I hate having people tortured.
    HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT!!!!!

    But, it is a necessary evil IF you got enough evidence to prove a connection. *hence the 1 dude knowing where the 100 people are, if you have proof that he knows, or works for that guy, he has Intel. If he does not tell you anything, he is hiding something.

    Look, if some dumb ass is kills/help killing people, I don’t feel sorry for the bastard.
    1 potato for 100 is a fair trade.
    I KNOW I never mentioned above that you need to prove it, but i forgot. That was bad on my part, sorry for the miss lead. Narrow minded? lol Everyone has there own opion. I could say YOUR narrow minded because you don’t see my side of things, but that is stupid.

    “But don't ever try to justify it as "For the greater good" because no matter what your reasons are, its an act of destruction directed against someone who can't fight back."

    You’re absolutely right. This is true. But I am sorry to say, that it is a necessary evil.


    "Don't you think that torture would destroy someone’s humanity? Are you going to hire someone who is sadistic and would love to do it anyway, and may withhold results just to have some more fun? Or would you get someone normal, who may have to go into therapy over what they've done?"

    What person in there right mind want to torture for fun who is not funky up in the head, or has revenge on there mind?
    I would higher the person who likes it. Why force a normal person to do something they don’t like to do?

    "And how are you going to stop them? Or is collateral damage ok?"
    Not reverent to the topic. But I will say this, you cant stop them. There will always be humans who will do this. That’s Life.

    "But that’s life.


    Yes, torturing people is life (sarcasm )"

    No, what I ment by that is there will always be people abusing the power and abusing the right to torture (if it were a right) Like politions. (for political gain)

    Sorry, but I believe in the old ways, and torture for the common good is expectable, just like murders should die a very painful death. And people who rape people should get there balls cut off. (Solves everything)
    They use to do this, and there were fewer crimes back then. Look at it now.

    Thx for the reading though!

    Its good to have a mature conversation for once.
     
  7. Zaij

    Zaij Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 10, 2004
    But a connection doesn't mean that the guy knows anything. Let's say I work at this hostagetakers store, which he uses as a front. I sweep floors, and don't know anything about their hostage taking activies. Next thing I know, a bunch of police barge in, take me away and torture me to try and find out information. Sure, I might work for the guy, but that doesn't mean I know he's a crim.

    That's why we have courts, juries, and lawyers. They decide who is innocent and who is guilty.

    How do you get the proof? Ever heard of "All evidence is circumstantial?"

    Or maybe he doesn't know anything?

    What about if 1 innocent person is tortured? Is one innocent person worth 100? Are 5? You can keep torturing people, and they might all not know anything. Next think you know, you've got 95 tortured innocents, and you're still no closer to finding the 100.

    I'm sorry, I don't believe in necessary evils. I think that people that do necessary evils are lazy, and don't want to spend their time looking for a good way to fix something.


    That's why I said a "sadistic" person.
    I've given a reason already for not hiring a sadist, and you're saying that we shouldn't hire someone who isn't. Who do we hire then?

    Who's going to stop the police from doing it aswell?

    I think most people would have heard: "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?"
     
  8. Aktins Diet

    Aktins Diet It Wandered In From the Wastes

    170
    Mar 8, 2005
    Aktins Diet wrote:
    But, it is a necessary evil IF you got enough evidence to prove a connection. *hence the 1 dude knowing where the 100 people are, if you have proof that he knows, or works for that guy, he has Intel.


    But a connection doesn't mean that the guy knows anything. Let's say I work at this hostagetakers store, which he uses as a front. I sweep floors, and don't know anything about their hostage taking activies. Next thing I know, a bunch of police barge in, take me away and torture me to try and find out information. Sure, I might work for the guy, but that doesn't mean I know he's a crim.

    That's why we have courts, juries, and lawyers. They decide who is innocent and who is guilty.

    How do you get the proof? Ever heard of "All evidence is circumstantial?"
    ________________

    first of all, he could give valuble intel of when he last saw the "enemies" or tell where the base is, or even tell what happened that day that could give some valuble data.

    Dont forget, there are other less ruthlis ways for tortureing a person, some can be very quick, but drive enough fear in a person to squeal.

    NOT all tortures are knifes going into you, and your being cut up.
    ________
    Quote:
    If he does not tell you anything, he is hiding something.

    Or maybe he doesn't know anything?
    ________
    if your working for a terroist network, you ALWAYS know something. If you tell them everything, you wont be tortured would you, if they dont say anything, its clear they have something worth knowing. See the point? No one wants to be tortured, but if your just a sweeper, chances are you will tell them when you sweeped, and he well you did it. But there is always that *chance. But lets not play what if games please.
    _________

    Quote:
    Look, if some dumb ass is kills/help killing people, I don’t feel sorry for the bastard.
    1 potato for 100 is a fair trade.


    What about if 1 innocent person is tortured? Is one innocent person worth 100? Are 5? You can keep torturing people, and they might all not know anything. Next think you know, you've got 95 tortured innocents, and you're still no closer to finding the 100.
    ______
    again, read above.
    ___________
    Quote:
    You’re absolutely right. This is true. But I am sorry to say, that it is a necessary evil.

    I'm sorry, I don't believe in necessary evils. I think that people that do necessary evils are lazy, and don't want to spend their time looking for a good way to fix something.
    _________
    LOL this is funny. Tell me, what way do you sugest?
    If a guy crosses his arms and says i wont say anything, what are you going to do then eh? what moral solution will make them talk?

    Look, untill we find a good lie detector test this is impossible to beat, and make the person talk 100% of the time, torture is the sad way to go.
    ______________
    Quote:
    What person in there right mind want to torture for fun who is not funky up in the head, or has revenge on there mind?

    That's why I said a "sadistic" person.
    _________
    and I did say that I would hire the bitch who likes this stuff, cause i dont want anyone to go through that shit when they dont want to.
    ____________
    Quote:
    I would higher the person who likes it. Why force a normal person to do something they don’t like to do?

    I've given a reason already for not hiring a sadist, and you're saying that we shouldn't hire someone who isn't. Who do we hire then?
    __________
    read above.
    _________
    Quote:
    Not reverent to the topic. But I will say this, you cant stop them. There will always be humans who will do this. That’s Life.

    Who's going to stop the police from doing it aswell?

    I think most people would have heard: "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?"
    ____________
    Ok, i just said there will always be people abusing the system. And it would be the public and the other police. But your right here for sure.

    also, i speak english, i cant read that quote. So i dont know what to say to that sorry. :cry:

    Thank you for reading all of this.
     
  9. Saint_Cadian

    Saint_Cadian First time out of the vault

    39
    Feb 11, 2005
    I dunno if anybody has mention this but, Goody-goodies don't win wars. War is never good in the first place so why try to act it? Regualtions of arms and methods only get people killed(the only reason the US is getting so few of casualties is because of technological superiority). Before anyone goes to counter me saying this by mentioning the WMDs, those weapons are great if you want to vaporize a whole country and make it useless But yet again it would be useless to have that kind of war in the first place.

    In war, everything you can use to win is legal. Torture is fine aslong as it's vital to finding out some intel. pleasure torture is just wasteful and causes problems with the civilian populations (IE. Riots, protests and revolutions). Trials take too long to be done with and the only thing our enemies get are a hot and a cott for a couple of months/years before they die, leaving what they know which will save lives useless. if you want an example, look at the Nurmberg trials and see the punishment these demons get as the years go by.

    what i also see alot is the misconception that the victims would give false information just so the torture to stop. Everybody has their limit to pain. once that limit has been reached, they will obey what you ask of them trithfully. Good(i don't mean goody-goody, i mean good at the trade) torturers know these lmits and know how to get information out of people.

    I may possibly be narrow-minded but that's my thoughts on that.
     
  10. billcd

    billcd First time out of the vault

    20
    Sep 15, 2004
    the question is, do you want to win one war at the cost of perpetuating the system of violence and conflict that will inevitably cost more lives in the future? unless you're ready to radically rethink your approach to violence- ALL violence- war will be inevitable. unnecessary deaths will continue. you must recognize that no death is acceptable, no pain is acceptable. of course, in the face of war, sometimes violence is the only choice. but it's still a bad choice. if you ever justify any death, death becomes inevitable. this includes any terrorist or anyone you deem evil or inhuman (including animals), because at that point an establishment- or mere assertion- of evil or lack of humanity justifies violence on the worse scale ever seen.
     
  11. calculon000

    calculon000 Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 10, 2004
    Maybe people are getting put inside the CUBE... :look:
     
  12. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Atkins- please learn to use the quote option. Your post is difficult to read already without making it more so.

    Ok, I will take another side of this-

    I don't buy the "skilled torturer" thesis above. A person is broken down under torture so that even if he confesses to something he doesn't commit, the torture will probably continue until the torturer believes he's sure. I would think that the average person will believe a lie even if it only means to escape pain. So the credibility of a confession under torture is suspect.

    I recently heard Janet Reno on Real Time with Bill Maher say this- the Justice Dept had ruled out torture during the Clinton years since any intelligence discovered through torture was suspect.

    But, the oldest human emotion is fear. Let's say that we don't use torture just to get information but as a deterrent against society itself.

    Essentially you send a message- if you fraternize with the enemy you may be tortured as a form of punishment. The fear of physical injury, but death. A person can be physically and mentally shattered for the suspicion of being related to a rebel movement.

    The more widespread the torture, the more profound the social insecurity. Society itself might fear the coercive power of the state whcih might not only take away their rights as citizens under weak evidence, but might also subject them to terrible physical and psychological trauma.

    Some folks might use this as a grievance to challenge the state. But most would probably not since the fear of physical danger might outweigh the grievance of a threat to individual liberty.

    In essence by utilizing torture one might better polarize society between those who support rebel groups and those that do not, and eliminate the middle category. Through that polarizing you might even weaken or marginalize your target group, making them more isolated and descrete.

    Consider for instance Soviet Russia where people would be purged under weak evidence, or in Nazi Germany where people would often disappear. Likewise in the US, the Red Scare makes people less likely to support or even pushes people to demonize communism.

    Those are only a few cases- Torture was used by the French in Algeria with some success (and it's depicted in the film Battle of Algiers). It has also been used through South America (see for instance 4 Days in September- about Brazil) and other parts of the world. Torture as an instrument of repression has probably succeed more than it has failed.

    Realize though, that in the process of doing this the state has become a terrorist.

    Do you really want to live in a country like that?
     
  13. Adz

    Adz Professional Lurker

    134
    Jul 18, 2004
    Channel 4 (uk) did a series of programs about this (has this already been mentioned?)

    In this program they used the same techniques that have been ok'd by the American government. They used volenteers, some against the methods of interrogation and some who (like some people here) think that it's nessasary. At the end of the program half the people had given up and had to stop the recreation. 1 man had to leave due to medical reasons.

    At the end of the project all members said that they thought what was going on was not acceptable. They couldn't last 48 hours. Some people have been in such conditions for 3 years and are there indefinatley under worse conditions (there were some things they couldn't do in the recreations as it was just plain illegal to do to a normal person)


    You can see the website by Channel 4 that explains it all: http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/index.html

    Here is some of the things that are currently done:



    I don't normally comment in threads like this but it's still fresh in my mind from the 4 programs / documentries on TV about it. Alot of their information came from recently de-calssified documents and they made me feel sick.
     
  14. DJ Slamák

    DJ Slamák Brain for eat. Not for think.

    777
    Apr 2, 2003
    Maybe I've just read the thread wrong, but it seems no-one's pointed out that after three years of total isolation from the world, the prisoners' intelligence value is now necessarily zero, no matter if it was that way from the outset or not. I really wonder if the interrogators still hope to get anything from them if they weren't able to extract any useful information in three years.
    Even better: who said all those people in Guantánamo are actual terrorists? If there were a way to prove that, wouldn't they have faced some charges by now? Besides, there are accounts of the Northern Alliance simply grabbing anyone who looked reasonably Arabic because the US paid them for delivering prisoners. Not saying they're true, but it doesn't sound all that implausible, really.
     
  15. Carib FMJ

    Carib FMJ Nuka-Cola Chaser

    Nov 8, 2003
    I think 'torture', I mean Intensive interrogation has its uses. Sometimes you have to make people talk, and I doubt the enemy has such compunctions.

    I don't like the idea of it coming down to snapping a man's fingers for info, but if I was a soldier, and I needed to save my men, I'd start cracking out the hot iron.
     
  16. Aktins Diet

    Aktins Diet It Wandered In From the Wastes

    170
    Mar 8, 2005
    Hey welsh, heard a lot of good things about you.
    anyways, i was to lazy to quote, so i did the old trick of the _____
    Sorry.

    O by the way, fire is only fought with fire, unless you have water. And we don't have water yet....if you know what i mean.

    O and one more thing Welsh,

    You asked would I want to live in a country that does torture, well, I do. WE ALL do. :(

    BIG BUSSINESS=POWER AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

    thus politions will be paid to had up, and secret tortures will continue when its in favor for them ultimently.
     
  17. Adz

    Adz Professional Lurker

    134
    Jul 18, 2004
    Lol. I might be an idiot because I don't know what you mean? What is water? Water to the US might be changing the definition of torture so what they're doing is ok by them. In which case we do have water ;)
     
  18. Aktins Diet

    Aktins Diet It Wandered In From the Wastes

    170
    Mar 8, 2005
    It means a peaceful way to make someone speak.
    fire=torture
    water=free of torture (like if we made it so they would never lie to us some how.)
    does that shead some light to you?
     
  19. Zaij

    Zaij Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 10, 2004
    Why do you necessarily have to make someone speak to find information? Torture isn't the only way to get information about something/one. Neither is making someone speak.
     
  20. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    You guys are missing the point.

    What if torture is not about getting information, but about repressing resistance through fear.

    In otherwords, another reason for having torture may have nothing to do with intelligence gathering. Rather, you send a message to society at large that you either cooperate or we'll torture you.