Can we condone tortue under any circumstance?

Scratch that, this was a stupid question. No I am not rescinding this because of the number of negative replies. I am rescinding it because I don't agree myself with what I posted. Sorry.

<original post>
This is a hard question to answer. My first gut reaction is no we should never condone torture under any circumstances, if we torture people then we are no better than animals. However there are circumstances where this becomes a bit of a gray area for a lot of people. To make this clear I am NOT talking about the torture that happened at Abu Ghraib and other such incidents. What happened there is completely unaceptable. What I am talking about are cases where the facts are clear.

Personally there are a few extreme cases where I could condone torture. And even here there is torture and then there is inhuman brutality. If you knew for certain the the information someone is keeping secret could save the lives of a significant number of people, say hundreds, then I probably would. Again though you have to define torture. If threatening to kill the guy, but not doing so, or inflicting sever but non life threating pain on someone is going to definitely save the lives of hundreds of people then I would condone it, but not hapilly. And you have to be almost certain that you have the right guy, which you almost never can be. I'm not going to condone skinning the guy alive though under any circumstance. And no I do not condone it for just information gathering purposes or punishment, that is no better than what dictatorial governments do.

For example if you knew someone had smuggled a nuke into the country and you knew the person who had done it.

</original post>

inevitably you get lie. so you sell out on humanity for a lie, something you cant trust anyone.

no

we have to have a line.

It's still worth reading.

From Democratic Underground
Dated March 11, 2004

Why Torture Doesn`t Work:
A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary.

Torture is regarded by progressive civil libertarians as an abomination that every civilized nation should outlaw. Modern international humanitarian law categorically prohibits its use. The Rome Statute classifies torture as a crime against humanity, the Third Geneva Convention (1949; Aritcles 3, 17, 87 and 130) prohibits its use against prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949; Articles 3, 32 and 147) probhits it against civilians in situations of armed conflict. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948; Article 5) states unequivocally, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Gloss is put on these declarations concerning torture by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the United States is a party . . . .

Dershowitz is regarded by many as a progressive civil libertarian. That he should part company with others on a matter that many feel defines progressivism has outraged more than a few. However, when one such as Dershowitz suggests that we cast aside much of what we hold dear, perhaps we should give him a hearing.

Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001) outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives over prosecuting and punishing the criminal.

Read more.

our meticulous observance of the Geneva Conventions saved a lot of lives in WWII. German soldiers would look for Americans to surrender to, knowing they would be treated humanely. Had Bush been in charge of things and his torturers working away, they likely would have fought to the death, costing their own lives as well as the lives of the Americans they killed.

There is no reason to embrace torture under any circumstances. A fanatic who knows where a ticking nuke is will lie to get the torture to stop, but will tell the truth if he expects to get out alive and knows the bomb is close by without torture. Instead of conducting a systematic search, men who rely on torture will be conducting all sorts of wild goose chases as the lies spew forth.

Finally, we didn't torture because of who WE were, not because of who they might be.

Any argument in favor of torture is a false one.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the allied bombing of Dresden.

You take a single step down that road, and you literally become the evil you seek to prevent.

There is NEVER any justification for it.

Torture is simply unacceptable.

If our government did what it was supposed to do, we wouldn't be torturing anybody.

You either believe in innocent until proven guilty or you don't.

Couldn't resist - sorry. My answer is no, absolutely no torture ever, for the reasons stated in above posts.

Even if it were not an ethical abomination, the information gained through torture is often unreliable.

it doesn't work for its intended purpose and it is cruel and inhuman.

If we really were in a situation where we knew a nuke had been smuggled into the country and knew the person who did it, I'm not sure even all of us would be as clear cut on this.

children, babies.........regardless of torture why in the world would they ever turn in their partner in hates crime. just let your mind think in a pattern of hate to be willing to do this, probably thru a religious cause, that truely has a grip on the brain in such brainwashing.

why would a person ever give up where the bomb is. i just dont see anyone willing to say, oh, let me tell you where it is

...and it's supposed justification depends on something you simply CANNOT know beforehand. Namely, that there is a 100% guarantee that the person you are torturing actually has this information and can be coerced into giving it up before that bomb goes off.

Instead, what you have in 99.99% (or better) of all these cases is a SUSPECT who MIGHT have information. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Frankly though, any society that condones violence EVEN TOWARD THE GUILTY is morally and ethically bankrupt. I'd rather be dead -- and everyone I know and love -- than for even the most evil person in existence to be tortured to save me.

That's how strongly I feel about it. Violence is simply wrong.

Or to put it in other words, sometimes the price for life and safety is simply too fucking high.

sooner or later, the pendulum always swings back. the universe is keeping score.

so besides the obvious reasons it's wrong (compassion for our fellow man) it's wrong for the reason that we could become the tortured.

torturing people to find out who they are working for. I am talking about more of a hypothetical situation like the smuggled nuke I posted above.

torturing people for ANY reason.

there is no black and white, there is no good or evil. there is only the measure of action and conscience.

Torture somebody and they'll tell you everything you want to hear, and every bit of it is likely to be false!

that's what i've heard about the intelligence business: if you look hard enough for something, you'll find it, whether it's there or not. same as in torture, i guess.

of O'Liely to justify torture. As if somebody is going to admit they planted a bomb somewhere and they would like you to torture the info out of them.

but I could see a few very rare circumstances where it might be used anyway, but we should never pretend that doing so is morally acceptable.

physically, never--IMO

That said, never on POWs.

I do in fact agree with all of you here. I was more playing devils advocate.

and re inforce an important belief

to continue my above post: US governments before this administration have used torture. Many say it has been taught at the School of the Americas and been practiced by CIA and DEA agents. None of that is acceptable, but there is something worse about the Bush administration's torture policy. In seeking to redefine torture, in pretending some are worthy of Geneva protections and not others, by crafting legal theories that justify their human rights abuses, they have moved toward making torture an official and ostensibly legitimate arm of American power. The torture carried out by US officials in the past was also morally abhorrent, but Bush, Rumsfeld, and Gonzalez's crimes are greater because they have worked to create an American policy that is centered around human rights abuse, even as they mouth platitudes of democracy. Because of them, torture and American power are linked in the minds of the outside world.

Not under any circumstance.

an inquisition. There is anotrher purpose. It could be used as a punishment for voting Republican. Tht would be the only use for which I would condone torture.

Any entity that commits torture under any circumstances deserves what ever it gets. It is morally repellant, but I guess this is what the USA now stands for. Torture by America dishonors all that have given their lives for this country since the revolutionary War. History is not going to be kind to those in this administration that paved the way for legitimizing American Brand torture.

-85%

Who would want to become a torturer?

Anyone can rationalize a circumstance where they might see a value to torturing someone (IF you throw out all the very good arguments against it already made in this thread), but someone has to do the deed.

Will it be someone who really Wants the job? Say goodbye to your rationale; now whatever the primary aim, somebody's getting a thrill out of doing it...and that's just plain sick.

If it's not someone who wants the job, then you have two victims: the tortured, and the torturer...and that's a horror show.

Just look at the bondage fetish sites online if you want to get an idea of who would be willing to "torture." Of course many are for entertainment purposes but there are tons of potential torturers among us.

There are other ways to get cooperation. Torture is the most unreliable way to get information. That has been known since the days of Torquemada. I personally believe that certain twisted types enjoy the suffering they impose on a helpless victim. They know that they aren't going to get anything worthwhile from their acts.

I like what the Italian Minister of Justice said when Prime Mnister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by the Red Brigade (an extremist student group of the 1960s and 1970s). There were some Red Brigade members in prison, and some right-winger said that they shoud be tortured to reveal the whereabouts of the kidnappers.

Here's what the Justice Minister said, "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It cannot survive the introduction of torture."

Remember, Italy knows what fascism is.