So. Torture.

[Queen Michael]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

(Oh, and I know perfectly well this kind of convenience isn't how it works in real life. That's why I didn't post this in the politics forum -- it's not applicable to real-world politics. Just interested in what you'll reply.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

EDIT 3: PLEASE STOP QUOTING THIS ENTIRE POST. Unless you specify otherwise, people will assume this post is what you're replying to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, that's a very loaded question there.

In this situation, I'd expect the CIA to be reasonably open and honest about what they do.

 

[stroopwafel]

I don't know. These people don't give a shit about their life(so doubtful the intel is reliable) so I doubt it is worth sacrificing the values we should have as a civilised society for. I think that was also one of the findings of that Feinstein report, that no clear examples could be found in which torture actually 'worked'(eventhough obviously a lot hasn't been declassified by the CIA).

It's a tricky question for sure, but in general I'd say no. I think in the end you lose more than you win. There are more effective methods to gather intel.

 

[OneCatch]

If it's a 9/11 scale attack I could somewhat understand the argument in favour of doing so even if though it's utterly barbarous. Not sure I'd have the moral flexibility or the stomach to actually endorse it though.

As you've recognised, this is an entirely contrived situation which is unlikely to ever occur outside of 24. So I'm not sure if I'm being rather more blase with my answer than I normally would be because I recognise that it's one of these daft hypothetical quandaries.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think that was also one of the findings of that Feinstein report, that no clear examples could be found in which torture actually 'worked'(eventhough obviously a lot hasn't been declassified by the CIA).

Well, sure, they aren't telling everything, but if there actually was a success due to all the torture they kept doing, I'd be rather surprised if they didn't reveal that.

 

[one squirrel]

Assuming that both the preconditions

-The prisoner is a member of the organsiation that is planning the attack
-The prisoner will give information that is sufficient to stop that attack

are true by definition, then yes, I would torture him.

In the real world I would not torture him, because the second precondition could never be assumed to be true, or even likely to be true.

That is my anser for now, but I know that it raises some serious ethic questions.

 

[Scarim Coral]

So the ends justify the means eh?

I would only support it if they are willing to admit it and face the judge for it aswell. Let leave it to court if they were justify to do so.

Still it would be interesting if this sort of technique still work in modern time-
http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/31/the-friendliest-interrogator-of-world-war-ii-was-a-nazi/

 

[Thaluikhain]

Still it would be interesting if this sort of technique still work in modern time-
http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/31/the-friendliest-interrogator-of-world-war-ii-was-a-nazi/

Huh.

Some of it, sure. Pretending you already have all the answers before you ask the questions...that's not a secret technique.

Taking prisoners for walks outside and so on sounds like a really big security risk

 

[stroopwafel]

Well, sure, they aren't telling everything, but if there actually was a success due to all the torture they kept doing, I'd be rather surprised if they didn't reveal that.

Not necessarily. Not if it would put agents at risk or when it's still part of ongoing operations, which seems likely as islamic terrorism isn't exactly ancient history. I'd be surprised if torture actually did led to prevention of mass-scale terrorist attacks, but in the shady world of spooks and clandestine services you never know. Most of the things that happen behind the scenes we will never know.

But again, with the facts available it's reasonable to conclude that torture doesn't work. Espescially in no way worth the PR damage.

 

[Glongpre]

Yes. I have no issue with torture, per se, but the same could be said of the death penalty. I don't approve of it in the real world because it doesn't work and catches innocents on occasion.

But doesn't the death penalty result in a 100% success rate?? I mean, they will be dead at the end, which is the purpose.

Unless you are talking about the impact on crime rate, in which yes, it doesn't really deter criminals.

Also, torture should never be inflicted on anyone, it is completely sadistic. All it does is bring negative energy, unless the torturer is a sadist, then he is probably having a grand time.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Well, in this hypothetical scenario in which torture actually produces useful results, and said results are, without question, the difference between life and death for many people, then...

Yes. Without question. This is almost comfortingly straightforward.

 

[Zannah]

I support torturing Al-Quaeda members regardless of confirmed incoming attacks.

 

[Something Amyss]

Still it would be interesting if this sort of technique still work in modern time-
http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/31/the-friendliest-interrogator-of-world-war-ii-was-a-nazi/

The US military often relies on confidence building and ethos establishment to obtain actionable intel. In fact, while we had Fox and Congress telling us that torture worked, we were seeing a radically different set of data.

 

[deathbydeath]

While I have "no" real opinion on the subject worth sharing, it does seem ironic that I was watching 24 throughout this kerfuffle (especially since I was watching S7, which is one of the more torture-intensive seasons and has some very good moments regarding Jack and the torture dilemma).

 

[Qizx]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

(Oh, and I know perfectly well this kind of convenience isn't how it works in real life. That's why I didn't post this in the politics forum -- it's not applicable to real-world politics. Just interested in what you'll reply.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

Taking ALL that into account, yes I would, no questions asked.

That being said.
Since that situation is absolutely impossible I still stand against any and all torture in the real world for a plethora or reasons I don't want to get into.

 

[Callate]

That sort of hypothetical situation... doesn't exist.

Bluntly, if a hypothetical someone believed they were in such a situation, if they're prepared to torture someone to do what they think is right, they should be prepared to go to jail to do what they think is right.

If you're prepared to torture someone but only so long as you have legal sanction to do so, you aren't really sure that it's that important, now are you?

 

[Vivi22]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

(Oh, and I know perfectly well this kind of convenience isn't how it works in real life. That's why I didn't post this in the politics forum -- it's not applicable to real-world politics. Just interested in what you'll reply.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

But completely loaded hypotheticals like this are irrelevant. Would I do it? No, because it's still wrong. Does this question have any value to anyone? No, because it is irrelevant to everyone and everything in the real world. What you would do in a scenario which literally never exists and never will doesn't matter. I don't even see how it holds any real discussion value.