Torture: Where should the line be drawn?

[-ACE-]

What is Torture?

The definition of torture as defined by Webster:
As a noun: (a): anguish of body or mind agony (b) something that causes agony or pain
As a verb: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture)

Text of the 8th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt8.html)

It is important to note that the way the Constitution is interpreted by society has changed greatly since the time of our Founding Fathers, and the 8th amendment is certainly no exception.

"The Eighth Amendment is more clearly affected by societal change than any other amendment in the Constitution, because the very nature of the phrase "cruel and unusual" appeals to evolving societal standards."
(http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/8th_amendment.htm)

For hundreds of years, various methods of torture have been used during war as a means of obtaining information during interrogations. However, torture has also often been used out of sheer cruelty or for sadistic pleasure/amusement. The main questions I wish to raise to you are as follows: How much is 'too much'? Does War make torture more acceptable? Is torture any more acceptable if the subject has already committed terrible crimes? Under what circumstances would you find any type of torture more acceptable?Where should the line be drawn?

Relevant Links:
A more in-depth illustration of the definition of torture within a debate
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Define_torture

An article on 'War on Terror' vs 'War on Torture'
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060624_war_on_terror.htm

U.S. and International Standards Against Torture
http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-te...-standards-against-torture/page.do?id=1031035

Interesting Links:
World Organisation Against Torture - official site
http://www.omct.org/

Display of torture devices from as early as the Middle Ages
http://www.torturamuseum.com/

 

[Aesir]

I don't think Conservapedia is an accurate source of information. Especially where they made the stab that captives who were in Abu Graib were treated like they were in a health spa, this isn't accurate. The people who were held captive in Abu Graib were not treated decently, or even poorly they were treated worse.

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html

Doesn't sound like a health spa to me.

To answer your question on Torture, we shouldn't allow it. But I won't bother taking the moral argument as it's quite obvious it's immoral to torture anybody. Not only that it's banned under international law. Our own laws as well, the supreme court decided that the tactics used by the bush administration were illegal.

However I will argue that torture gives us nothing good, when you're torturing someone you're putting them under a great deal of Physical and Psychological pain. All while trying to get information out of them, what tends to happen is you have prisoners just giving them information their captives want to hear so the pain can simply stop. Where as approaching them in a more human manner usually gets more accurate information.

Before 9/11 we use to interrogate captives by simply talking to them and gaining their trust. Which gave us far more accurate information then chaining up iraqis and kicking their shins for hours on end. Or ****** them, or sexually humiliating them.

 

[-ACE-]

I don't think Conservapedia is an accurate source of information.

I agree. I didn't use Conservapedia as a source, the links I included at the end are for the use of others in case they want to dig a bit further into the topic or look at example of arguments in debates.

However I will argue that torture gives us nothing good, when you're torturing someone you're putting them under a great deal of Physical and Psychological pain. All while trying to get information out of them, what tends to happen is you have prisoners just giving them information their captives want to hear so the pain can simply stop. Where as approaching them in a more human manner usually gets more accurate information.

Do you feel that there is ever a time where torture could yield a positive outcome?

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily supporting the use of torture as a means of obtaining information. I just want to see some opinions.

 

[Aesir]

Do you feel that there is ever a time where torture could yield a positive outcome?

No, torture has given us nothing but bad information, so from a pragmatic stand point it doesn't even work.

Not only that we have no way of falsifying whether these guys are actually terrorists, the abu graib incident for instance where the young taxi cab driver was taken prisoner and basically killed by US soldiers during interrogation. He had no ties to terrorists and was just a simple taxi cab driver. Yet here he was in a military prison being tortured for information.

So to wrap this up quickly; My view on torture is the same as the death penalty. it shouldn't be done, there's always the chance we'll have the wrong guy torturing the wrong guy is how you make enemies.

 

[-ACE-]

No, torture has given us nothing but bad information, so from a pragmatic stand point it doesn't even work.

What if you were under a time crunch? If you caught a terrorist just as he armed and secured a time bomb to a building full of civilians, would you try to talk him into giving you the code that was necessary to disarm it?

So to wrap this up quickly; My view on torture is the same as the death penalty. it shouldn't be done, there's always the chance we'll have the wrong guy torturing the wrong guy is how you make enemies.

Would this problem not lie within the act/methods of capturing enemies instead of deciding how to get information out of them (just as with the death penalty the problem would lie within the judicial system, would it not)?

I don't mean to steer the thread in another direction here (death penalty), and I know my first example here is a bit far-fetched, but I feel there may be times in war where you are left with very limited options and information must be obtained in a timely manner. I also would never support very cruel methods torture such as anything sexual or anything that involves tools used to manipulate organs (or anything of that nature). I honestly see no point to this, as it lowers us from the moral high ground to the level of the terrorist.

 

[Kewkky]

What if you were under a time crunch? If you caught a terrorist just as he armed and secured a time bomb to a building full of civilians, would you try to talk him into giving you the code that was necessary to disarm it?

I dunno, but this sounds fishy to me... If the terrorist put a bomb somewhere, it's obvious that his intent was to bring pain and terror to the vicinity. What's keeping him from making up a code and giving it to them, then it being a catalyst that speeds up the bomb's detonation? His mission would've been accomplished since he was gonna die anyway.

 

[-ACE-]

I dunno, but this sounds fishy to me... If the terrorist put a bomb somewhere, it's obvious that his intent was to bring pain and terror to the vicinity. What's keeping him from making up a code and giving it to them, then it being a catalyst that speeds up the bomb's detonation? His mission would've been accomplished since he was gonna die anyway.

Ok, you're over-analyzing the example. Apparently I should have given it more thought.

 

[TheMike]

As i don't live in the USA, i'm not too familiar with the Constitution. Here in Brazil we don't have those kinds of punishments. Actually, sometimes we don't even have people being punished. Politicians are so bad here.. but when they get convicted, they become THE ANGEL, all of the televisions channels talk about in their favor, why? Because of our president. That's silly, but i do need to agree with none hard punishments, such as torturing because it can be done by many ways and, sometimes, the way that is happening with a person, isn't the right one, it's MUCH. What's much? Abuse of the power against the one that is being tortured.


I really can't talk much about that subject and i told the reason, but that's my opinion and i apolagize for my bad English :X

 

[Kewkky]

Ok, you're over-analyzing the example. Apparently I should have given it more thought.

The point I was trying to make was: even in that kind of scenarios, torture is still not the best solution. People would still lie, it's not a sure-fire way of getting the truth... Sure, every once in a while they might cough it up, but what are the chances of them also lying to just catch a breather? Then you won't even believe them when they actually tell you the truth... Even less when you're accidentally torturing an innocent and he gives you huge amounts of false information.

It would just be better to leave it as a last resort, where it's only used when everything else fails and time is running out... And even then, it should be thought thoroughly about how the person should be tortured (too extreme is a little inhumane, don't you think?).


Torture Results (WashingtonPost.com)

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Well, haven't people used torture for a rather long time now?

The line should be drawn quite close; torture does not always bring out the correct answer or the truth from a person. While being tortured, the person could easily lie, and if the torturers think that he/she is lying, then they'll just torture him/her even more. Same concept applies when the person being tortured tells the truth, the torturers could still misinterpret or think that they're lying.

Yet that isn't the only way torture is used; there are those sadists.

it should be thought thoroughly how the person should be tortured (too extreme is a little inhumane, don't you think?)

True, but what if they are running out of time to get the information? As said before, the bomb situation, the interrogators would need information as fast as possible.
To think it through thoroughly would take time. That might take too much time!
Also, sadists would take it to the extreme just for their pleasure (sickening, isn't it?).

The psychological effects of torture can leave a person scarred for life, a good example is from this:

Psychiatric evaluations of 279 victims of torture and other abuses from the Balkan wars of the 1990s showed that both types of ill treatment led to similarly high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The victims themselves rated the psychological tactics on par with the physical abuses they suffered.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0306-04.htm "Psychological Torture Just as Bad, Study Finds"

I'd say psychological torture is worse than physical torture; messing with the mind may have profound negative effects on a person.
The need to torture may come out of many influences: abused as a child, revenge, utter hatred for the person's Religion or nationality.

However, I think torture should be applied to the ones that have committed horrible and gruesome crimes; to make them feel the pain of their victim's family or the pain of the victim without the death.

The only circumstances that I would find torture acceptable would be if one of my family members were killed by a person, and the authorities had captured that person. Out of pure revenge, I would want the murderer to suffer. Not to make them suffer for extended periods of time or reduce them to their lowest level, just inflict some pain on them to let them know how it feels. That's what I would do if there was no other way, yet other people would disagree with me.

Yet even then, I would still be very reluctant to use torture as a method, as it is still considered evil or morally wrong.

 

[hillbillyhick]

Just like in the "right time to kill" thread there is no correct or wrong position here. However I'd like to give my opinion and some rules I personally use to judge a situation wherein torture takes place.

I actually see it as a kind of inequality (symbols make everything seem simpler)

P(B/A) * B > T

where :
- P(B/A) is the chance of benefits when torture is applied (are we torturing the right person?, will torture make the target speak?, will the information save lives, give the desired outcome?, etc...)
- B is the value given to the benefits (saving of lives, making people happy,etc...)
- T is the value given to the disadvantages of torture (physical or psychological harm to the subject or torturer, public unrest, protests,...)

Put simply: the (realistic) benefits gained by torturing have to outweigh the disadvantages that come with torture.

Rule is here: the bigger the left side of the equation relative to the right, the more you can justify torture.
Of course this is simplified, how people fill in these values is entirely subjective, making torture in a certain situation seem like a viable option to one person and a terrible option to another. Also of course I would never enter any numbers into this as I find it impossible to put a value on these abstract notions, it just displays how I like to make a judgment about torture situations.

Some rules I also see as moral:
- never use it for revenge, punishment, setting an example or for your pleasure.
- if used, always use the minimum amount of torture possible to get results. (T should be as small as possible)


A criticisms which will apply to most opinions in this thread (mine included):
- You can't add the values of human lives (or human happiness, suffering) together.
If there is such a thing as a value to a human life, then there are two obvious choices: all lives are of equal value or some lives are more important than others. Most will agree with the second notion (for those who say the first, think about this: would you rather have a stranger dying or a friend). If values of lives differ -doesn't matter what criteria you use- then it can be assumed there is something like a mean of human value (the value you put on a random person's life). From this follows that according to the criteria used, the life of 20 random people is worth more than that of 2 random people.

Where should the line be drawn, how much is too much?
I find it entirely dependent on the situation, where the line needs to be drawn is when the right side of the equation comes close to the left side.

 

[thanortinzak]

I believe torture should never be used.

First of all, there is no accurate way to tell whether the person you are torturing is lying, or telling the truth. How do you know someone is lying? How do you know if someone is telling the truth? People can still lie when being tortured. And if someone tells the truth while being tortured, how do we know they are not lying?

This alone destroys the case for allowing torture.

 

[hillbillyhick]

I believe torture should never be used.

First of all, there is no accurate way to tell whether the person you are torturing is lying, or telling the truth. How do you know someone is lying? How do you know if someone is telling the truth? People can still lie when being tortured. And if someone tells the truth while being tortured, how do we know they are not lying?

This alone destroys the case for allowing torture.

No it most certainly does not. You're saying that because there is a chance that the benefit received from torturing (e.g. information that could save countless lives) is false, that we should refrain from doing it whatsoever. Are you claiming that if thousands of lives are at risk, you would refrain from torturing as a lost resort, because the tortured person might feel like lying. It not only sounds absurd, it is quite contradictory to many established practices. For example: we lock up someone because he is perceived to be a danger to society, without actually knowing for sure he would actually commit crimes if set loose, we do a bad thing only because we have sufficient reason to believe the benefits outweigh it.

Just because we can not predict something with absolute certainty should not withhold us to act. So no, I don't think it destroys the case for allowing torture. Your claim that you believe torture should never be used is of course valid, if that's how you feel. I would however judge you as immoral if you would refrain from torturing a single man to save the lives of thousands.

 

[Aesir]

What if you were under a time crunch? If you caught a terrorist just as he armed and secured a time bomb to a building full of civilians, would you try to talk him into giving you the code that was necessary to disarm it?

This is similar to the ticking time bomb scenario which is full of holes and bad assumptions.

You do realize the scenario you described isn't very possible? The odds that we'll catch a terrorists as he's in the act is about as unlikely as it comes. Not only that, even if we did catch him do you really think he's going to give us any information by torturing them? Even in a timely manner? Your scenario is full of assumptions that don't add up within the scope of reality.

Would this problem not lie within the act/methods of capturing enemies instead of deciding how to get information out of them (just as with the death penalty the problem would lie within the judicial system, would it not)?

You're never going to have a full proof system, this is why we have appellate courts.

You're never going to have 100% certainty that you have the right guy unless you're watching him 24/7.

Our judicial system actually works quite well.

I don't mean to steer the thread in another direction here (death penalty), and I know my first example here is a bit far-fetched, but I feel there may be times in war where you are left with very limited options and information must be obtained in a timely manner. I also would never support very cruel methods torture such as anything sexual or anything that involves tools used to manipulate organs (or anything of that nature). I honestly see no point to this, as it lowers us from the moral high ground to the level of the terrorist.

I take issue with the fact that you said "In a timely manner" do you know how many hours it takes for these terrorists to even give us information when we torture them? hours, sometimes days.

This doesn't sound like an effective way to gather information.

 

[-ACE-]

You do realize the scenario you described isn't very possible? The odds that we'll catch a terrorists as he's in the act is about as unlikely as it comes. Not only that, even if we did catch him do you really think he's going to give us any information by torturing them? Even in a timely manner? Your scenario is full of assumptions that don't add up within the scope of reality.

Keep in mind, the scenario was purely hypothetical. I admit I should have given it more thought, as I didn't expect people to pick at the details instead of attempting to refute the point behind it. The point was this: in a time where many innocent lives were at stake, and you absolutely knew verbal persuasion wouldn't yield information quick enough to save them, would you consider any method of torture?

Our judicial system actually works quite well.

Did you not just imply that the death penalty is bad because statistics show that you may not have the right guy? I didn't say the judicial system is pathetic, but it is flawed. It should be our goal to minimize flaws within this system just as it should within our methods of capturing terrorists.

I take issue with the fact that you said "In a timely manner" do you know how many hours it takes for these terrorists to even give us information when we torture them? hours, sometimes days.

This doesn't sound like an effective way to gather information.

There's always a chance that someone could give up the proper information in fear of physical pain. Like I said, I don't support brutal or sexual methods of torture, but I believe there are some times where some sort of torture could be beneficial.

I am not saying that torture is good. I am not saying that it is the best way to gather information. I am simply leaving myself open to different possibilities, and I think you should do the same, Aesir. You are a very good debater, and after the points you brought up in your first two posts, this thread could have easily died if it wasn't for someone attempting to challenge your views (imo).

 

[Aesir]

Keep in mind, the scenario was purely hypothetical. I admit I should have given it more thought, as I didn't expect people to pick at the details instead of attempting to refute the point behind it. The point was this: in a time where many innocent lives were at stake, and you absolutely knew verbal persuasion wouldn't yield information quick enough to save them, would you consider any method of torture?

You're either not paying much attention to my arguments or you're just playing devils advocate to keep this debate alive.

What you're describing here isn't reality, it's an episode on 24. If you have a terrorist in your custody catching him within moments of setting a bomb do you really think he's going to give you the information if you strap his body to a car battery? Or press a knife against his eye? Or even if you water board them? No. Torture methods don't even yield correct information let a lone in a timely manner.

Did you not just imply that the death penalty is bad because statistics show that you may not have the right guy? I didn't say the judicial system is pathetic, but it is flawed. It should be our goal to minimize flaws within this system just as it should within our methods of capturing terrorists.

Sure it has it's flaws, and I'm not saying it doesn't need reform, but it isn't nearly as bad as people claim it to be. Our system of Common law is a very flexible system and I would never advocate the changes to it's core elements.

However there are times during capital trials where there is fowl play. Murder cases for instance usually invoke some emotion of bringing the bad guy to justice, and as soon as a case gains recognition it becomes very competitive the prosecution wants to catch the bad guy. Often times they cut corners, withhold exculpatory evidence, pretend like certain reports don't exist. Also people generally just make mistakes, whether it's eye witnesses or what have you. These are problems that likely can't be reformed, so instead of wasting the money on countless repeals and running the risk of catching the wrong guy and killing him we just shouldn't have it to begin with.

I'm likely going to get some flack for that.

There's always a chance that someone could give up the proper information in fear of physical pain. Like I said, I don't support brutal or sexual methods of torture, but I believe there are some times where some sort of torture could be beneficial.

Without proper evidence you really have nothing to go off of here.

I am not saying that torture is good. I am not saying that it is the best way to gather information. I am simply leaving myself open to different possibilities, and I think you should do the same, Aesir. You are a very good debater, and after the points you brought up in your first two posts, this thread could have easily died if it wasn't for someone attempting to challenge your views (imo).

Why would I open my self up to bad policy? Throughout the past eight years when we've tortured terrorists we gathered BAD information, Colin Powell even lost his job because the information was bad.

The only times when we've gathered any sort of productive intelligence has been when we tried to gain these mens trusts, not by chaining them up to ceilings and kicking their shins for hours on end. Or strapping them to a bed and performing water boarding tactics.

These tactics don't give us good information or any information at all. In fact it's not even a quick way to gather information, as the process usually takes hours and even days.

 

[-ACE-]

You're either not paying much attention to my arguments or you're just playing devils advocate to keep this debate alive.

What you're describing here isn't reality, it's an episode on 24. If you have a terrorist in your custody catching him within moments of setting a bomb do you really think he's going to give you the information if you strap his body to a car battery? Or press a knife against his eye? Or even if you water board them? No. Torture methods don't even yield correct information let a lone in a timely manner.

Whaaaat? Wow. Aesir, just FORGET I EVER MENTIONED THE EXAMPLE.

Without proper evidence you really have nothing to go off of here.

Evidence for a belief of mine? I never said it was truth.

Are you saying that it is completely impossible for someone to give up information in fear of physical pain?

I'd like to add that it's difficult to find evidence for torture being effective, not only because it isn't the best way to get information out of people, but also because it almost always happens 'behind closed doors' and is rarely publicized (for good reason).

Why would I open my self up to bad policy?

Ok, I see that in your opinion, torture is NEVER a tactic to be considered, and could NEVER be beneficial to any party in any way, shape, or form; regardless of the circumstances in any situation that could ever possibly happen on this Earth. I was simply trying to have a healthy discussion/debate (where people's views don't go unchallenged) and I think I offended you somehow. All I wanted was for those participating in the discussion to keep an open mind.

 

[Aesir]

Evidence for a belief of mine? I never said it was truth.

I'd hate to be a ****, but in the DH your beliefs don't really matter that much without evidence.

Are you saying that it is completely impossible for someone to give up information in fear of physical pain?

I'm sure there are instances, but those instances are very few and far between. Even if they did talk, we have no way of falsifying the information. Where as approaching them and gaining their trusts has proven to not only be more humane but gives us more accurate information.

I'd like to add that it's difficult to find evidence for torture being effective, not only because it isn't the best way to get information out of people, but also because it almost always happens 'behind closed doors' and is rarely publicized (for good reason).

But the evidence we do have shows a very grim situation. Where we torturing people for information and they're just telling us what we want to hear as opposed to what we need to hear.

Ok, I see that in your opinion, torture is NEVER a tactic to be considered, and could NEVER be beneficial to any party in any way, shape, or form; regardless of the circumstances in any situation that could ever possibly happen on this Earth. I was simply trying to have a healthy discussion/debate (where people's views don't go unchallenged) and I think I offended you somehow. All I wanted was for those participating in the discussion to keep an open mind.

I'm not offended.

 

[-ACE-]

I'd hate to be a ****, but in the DH your beliefs don't really matter that much without evidence.

I'm sure there are instances

You just asserted the exact same claim I did (the one you asked me to back up with evidence). It is not necessary that evidence be displayed for such a simple claim. I try to back up important claims I make with evidence or statistics via trusted sources, but here you are just nit-picking. I'm sure you will take this the wrong way, and maybe I shouldn't have said it, but oh well.

 

[Aesir]

You just asserted the exact same claim I did. It is not necessary that evidence be displayed for such a simple claim. I try to back up important claims I make with evidence or statistics via trusted sources, but here you are just nit-picking. I'm sure you will take this the wrong way, and maybe I shouldn't have said it, but oh well.

I didn't assert that it was okay to torture, I'm stating there are instances were certain people might share information through the use of torture. That shouldn't be read as advocating for torture in certain scenarios, because we shouldn't be torturing regardless; Because no matter how you look at it, torture isn't a reliable interrogation strategy.

Those captives will say anything to make the torture stop, but at the same time if they're a terrorist they'll continue to keep their loyalty to their cause and their organization. How? By lying.

Even if we did torture during those VERY rare scenarios we're still not sure if the information we got was accurate. It might be, but there's no way of being sure when you're under a lot of pain you'll say anything to make it stop.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm sure there are those few who would succumb to the pressure, but when you allow for those instances you're treading down a slippery slope.

 

[Kewkky]

If terrorists are being trained to deal with America's "horrible torture methods" that their home countries told them America WOULD do, and then when they're captured America DOES do the horrible torture methods, I don't doubt that the terrorists would deny giving out information, ever... Now, if America instead would be kinder towards them and gain their trust using whatever method they desire to use, there is a chance that the terrorist will think "Wait, why are they treating me so nice? This must be some sort of trickery...". And the more they go back into the interrogation room, the less it seems like trickery, and they slowly open up to give them good information.

This is all pure hypothesis, but it could describe a few of the cases in which we've gotten true information via trust and false information via torture... And it's good enough to say that torture doesn't usually yield the results we desire... Add in whatever links have been added to the thread that explains how torture usually ends up gaining, and you got yourself a "last resort" that is also considered useless (if it does the same as interrogation -yield true and false information- might as well not use it... Plus if you torture, there's no way you'll be able to try anything else because you'll never be able to gain their trust. You'll be stuck with your torture results and nothing more will come off it due to their hatred towards you).

I'm still for the whole "if kindness doesn't work and everything else fails, try a more drastic method". There are usually many different options to consider before going into torture. Even truth serum wouldn't be a bad idea when compared to physical and emotional trauma.

 

[Omni]

I'm going to play devil's advocate. I believe torture is completely acceptable.

The line that should not be crossed is when torture is no longer torture i.e. murder.

When talking about torture it is important to assess the setting in which it takes place. Is it during a time of war? Is it a small crime investigation? Does the suspect have any crimes pinned on him or her at the time? There are a lot of variables to consider.

However, I believe it is notable to understand that the reason why certain soldiers of all nations go through torture training is because it is a very effective tool to extract information. The information that the captor holds could be crucial for saving and preventing hundreds of lives, or it could be essential for locating key players that are targeted for assassination.

Regardless, we have to weigh what amount of torture should be used based on the possible information that can be extracted. This is where the lines become gray and it becomes harder to determine if torture should be used and if so how much.