So. Torture.

[Loonyyy]

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.)[/b]

So what you're asking is if-in your unrealistic fantasy where torture is not only the right option, but the only correct option, if I would go through with it?

Well then fuck you, because my answer is no. There are always better ways of getting information. Why not try bribing him? Why not try getting his family hand having them talk to him?

Furthermore, what about the blowback? Are you just going to torture every person you think has information? Are you going to expect to have the same circumstances literally every time? Because you won't. And how do you know that other people won't just make stuff up? And what happens when one of your soldiers gets captured and has his fingernails ripped out, and is forced to eat his own shit? Are you going to prosecute the bastard that did that? Do you think the world at large will let you?

Your Jack Bauer bullshit is not flying in my home, not without me getting a word in.

I'm really glad you made this post (There's a couple of others in the same vein). This thought experiment is meant to accomplish what exactly? Get people to choose torture, when we completely redefine torture and the world? Congratulations. That's an incredibly intellectually vapid pursuit. What next, will we read Atlas Shrugged, for the thought experiment of Objectivism? I mean, what do we fucking learn from this? To take anything from the thought experiment would be 1.) Stupid. 2.) Really stupid. 3.) REALLY FUCKING STUPID. 4.) Lead us to an immoral, illogical conclusion.

The worst part is, this thinking minus the caveats is what justifies numerous crimes against humanity, including ones committed BY THE CIA.

 

[spartan231490]

No. Even in this perfect fantasy world, no. Not until and unless he had been convicted of conspiracy or worse.

 

[Gorrath]

Simply put, no. NO way. Not ever. A bit of elaboration though. As I've mentioned around these parts before, I was in the military for years. As part of some elective training, I submitted myself to being tortured using several different methods. I know what torture is, I know what it feels like and I know how it can affect you long-term. Under no circumstance should torture be used. You can come up with whatever hypothetical you like and dress it up however you want, it does not matter. If you engage in torturing your enemies, no matter how you justify it by pointing to outcomes, you have already lost any and all moral high ground. You are no better than the "terrorists" you are torturing and you may as well just be another dictatorial regime.

TO all of those who read this, please take it from someone who knows; torture is wrong. Morally, ethically and in every way possible, torture is wrong. Do not support it, ever, under any circumstance. And in case anyone is wondering, hell yes water boarding is torture.

 

[Madkipz]

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.

No.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

No.

Careful, the mods don't like one word answers. Now, say the same thing using a sentence or two, that's fine.

 

[loa]

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.

What's the point of this then?
One of the biggest counterpoints to torture is that it just doesn't work since it tends to create so much misinformation.
It's like going "let's ignore all false convictions in this scenrio I made up because it suits my agenda" when discussing the death penalty.

Maybe the extent to which you need to bend reality to coerce the answer you want should tell you something about you posiion.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

What's the point of this then?
One of the biggest counterpoints to torture is that it just doesn't work since it tends to create so much misinformation.

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

 

[loa]

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

I like to have arguments that aren't solely based on "morality" since those tend to be weak as well.
See anti abortion protesters and basically anything involving porn or religion.

 

[Frankster]

In this fantasy scenario you've pretty much eliminated all the downsides of torture save for the ethical side.

So what it comes down to is...Are you willing to sacrifice a bit of your humanity to save other peoples lives? Damn that's heavy.

I'm almost glad this is a fantasy scenario, the world would be such a worst place if we happened to know torture worked and should be used whenever possible.

The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary.

It's weak by itself but it's usually said in retort to "you gotta torture someone for their info to save your loved ones!" line of thinking. It is very necessary in context otherwise a lot of people would dismiss YOUR stance as being weak and unnecessary since they don't give a fuck about ethics in torture, they just care about its efficacy to protect their loved ones/country or w/e.

 

[babinro]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

 

[Gorrath]

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

I like to have arguments that aren't solely based on "morality" since those tend to be weak as well.
See anti abortion protesters and basically anything involving porn or religion.

The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary.

It's weak by itself but it's usually said in retort to "you gotta torture someone for their info to save your loved ones!" line of thinking. It is very necessary in context otherwise a lot of people would dismiss YOUR stance as being weak and unnecessary since they don't give a fuck about ethics in torture, they just care about its efficacy to protect their loved ones/country or w/e.

The problem is though that the efficacy argument simply isn't a good one. Anyone who actually looks into the issue will learn that torture can be an effective means of intelligence gathering, so if that is a part of your anti-torture argument, it's actually hurting your position. If the person you are debating with does not care about the moral or ethical obligations that are violated by torture, then they need to be challenged philosophically because you can justify doing pretty much anything if you don't care about ethics and morals.

There are plenty of really good reasons to oppose torture but efficacy is not one of them . Using that argument only serves to undermine you.

 

[Gorrath]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

Well, I've got some bad news unfortunately. Torture does work. Not all the time but there are plenty of cases where torture has directly led to such plots being discovered and dismantled before they could come to fruition. If your only defense against torture is an efficacy one, then you've lost the argument. I'm engaged with two other posters over exactly this problem. You can want to believe that it's ineffective. Hell, many people do! But at the end of the day, if you don't oppose it on moral/ethical grounds, and you honestly do think you would be negligent in NOT torturing someone in the scenario given, then you should support torture.

I don't agree though that torturing someone for information is okay, no matter what the outcome and no matter how sure you are that the information is reliable. If torture really didn't work, the CIA wouldn't do it. It does work though, often enough for it to be rationalized if you don't care about the moral and ethical problems.

 

[Gorrath]

If torture really didn't work, the CIA wouldn't do it.

All other points aside, this is utter bullshit. If you're argument is "The CIA does it so it must be worth something", you have no leg to stand on. The CIA is behind some of the most eggregious fuck-ups this country has ever perpetrated.

No, it isn't utter bullshit. My argument isn't, "The CIA does it, so it must be worth something," my argument is, "I know for a fact that the CIA does it because it works and know for a fact that they wouldn't do it if it didn't." The way I know this is because I have first hand knowledge about the hows, whys and methods of torture employed by the CIA and other groups around the world. I know these things because it was part of training I received while in the military when I worked with certain groups.

I can explain how and why torture works if you like, but appealing to organizational fuck-ups by the CIA doesn't demonstrate that my claim is wrong.

Edit: Also, I apologize if I come off as aggressive here. It is not my intent to seem that way. I have some emotional involvement with the subject matter that surfaces despite my best efforts to remain calm. I assure you that I only intend to approach this rationally, not to put you or anyone else on the defensive. Thanks!

 

[Frankster]

Anyone who actually looks into the issue will learn that torture can be an effective means of intelligence gathering.

Ok I'll bite. Links to studies or sources to support your statement?

I'm willing to educate myself even if it will make me very sad to know torture works and is a great 100% effective information gathering tool, cos in doing so then I honestly haven't got that many GOOD arguments against torture besides an appeal to morals, and that is too "hippy"/"liberal" to work in a rl context with people who are pro torture, same for "challenging people philosophically". You really think people want that and would not find such attempts annoying especially when it's a debate they are usually not even interesting in having?

 

[Frankster]

Anyone who actually looks into the issue will learn that torture can be an effective means of intelligence gathering.

Ok I'll bite. Links to studies or sources to support your statement?
A preliminary net search on the topic doesn't find much to back up your claims, and indeed what university papers and research essays I find contradict your claims, but I didn't do more then a cursory search.

I'm willing to educate myself even if it will make me very sad to know torture works and is a great 100% effective information gathering tool, cos in doing so then I honestly haven't got that many GOOD arguments against torture besides an appeal to morals, and that is too "hippy"/"liberal" to work in a rl context with people who are pro torture, same for "challenging people philosophically".You really think people want that and would not find such attempts annoying especially when it's a debate they are usually not even interesting in having?

 

[Piorn]

So in this hypothetical scenario you're asking me to press one of two buttons, a) or b).
a)tortures a person b) kills several random civillians.
Both make you effectively a terrorist, and eventually put you at the receiving end of that same dilemma.

Throw a coin.

 

[Gorrath]

Anyone who actually looks into the issue will learn that torture can be an effective means of intelligence gathering.

Ok I'll bite. Links to studies or sources to support your statement?

I'm willing to educate myself even if it will make me very sad to know torture works and is a great 100% effective information gathering tool, cos in doing so then I honestly haven't got that many GOOD arguments against torture besides an appeal to morals, and that is too "hippy"/"liberal" to work in a rl context with people who are pro torture, same for "challenging people philosophically". You really think people want that and would not find such attempts annoying especially when it's a debate they are usually not even interesting in having?

Well, to clarify, I am not claiming that torture "...is a great 100% effective information gathering tool." My claim is that it is a comparably effective method of gathering intelligence. I cannot provide you with sources other than myself, which you likely will not find compelling since you don't know me from a hippo with passable English skills. You aren't going to find a study that says that people who are tortured tend to give accurate information because such studies fail to account for how information gathered from torture is processed and what other methods are employed for information verification. The CIA doesn't just torture someone and take their word for things, what they do is employ various methods, of which torture is just a part, in order to build a body of intelligence which is then checked against existing intelligence.

I can't give a more detailed description than that I'm afraid. Torture alone would not be a reliable method of gathering intelligence, that much is true, but when combined with a body of other methods and practices it does yield positive results often enough to be a very useful tool. This is why torture is practiced. If it consistently failed to provide any benefit, neither the CIA nor any other intelligence network worth a damn would employ its use.

I wish to hell it didn't work, because that would make it so much easier to combat.

 

[Pseudonym]

Nope. Torture is wrong, now and always. It is better to undergo evil than to do evil so I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than lose my humanity through my own actions.