Torture

[DigiFluid]

The big big thing in this episode that I really, really was unhappy about. First Young is happy to throw out due process, suggesting he'll get an answer out of Telford by any means necessary--and O'Neill appears to be okay with it despite Daniel's objection. And then we've got Kiva prattling on about how she's learned over the years that torture is effective, who is proven right by Rush giving in :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif

[Pharaoh Atem]

this is SGU it's supposed to be darker

[s09119]

The big big thing in this episode that I really, really was unhappy about. First Young is happy to throw out due process, suggesting he'll get an answer out of Telford by any means necessary--and O'Neill appears to be okay with it despite Daniel's objection. And then we've got Kiva prattling on about how she's learned over the years that torture is effective, who is proven right by Rush giving in :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif

Desperate times, desperate circumstances. I'd stave off torture for as long as possible, but when this many lives (not to mention Destiny itself) are at stake, sometimes morality has to take a backseat to survival.

[DigiFluid]

You can be "dark" without straying to the wrong side of right and wrong.

[DigiFluid]

Desperate times, desperate circumstances. I'd stave off torture for as long as possible, but when this many lives (not to mention Destiny itself) are at stake, sometimes morality has to take a backseat to survival.
Never. Survival is nothing without morality.

[Pharaoh Atem]

You can be "dark" without straying to the wrong side of right and wrong.

the power of the darkside is strong

[s09119]

Never. Survival is nothing without morality.

So you would rather let all of humanity die than torture someone? You essentially killed billions of people because you felt you were "above" a certain action. Where's the morality in that?

[jelgate]

You can be "dark" without straying to the wrong side of right and wrong.

And you call yourself a DS9 fan:P

Its kind of cold and under normal circumstances I would never advocate torture but I have to ask myself in Young's mind how many lives can be saved in locating the Lucian Alliance

[Krazeh]

Never. Survival is nothing without morality.

Morality is not absolute. What can be considered immoral in one situation isn't always immoral in other situations.

[Pharaoh Atem]

And you call yourself a DS9 fan:P



"in the pale moonlight" being the best example. IMO

[DigiFluid]

So you would rather let all of humanity die than torture someone? You essentially killed billions of people because you felt you were "above" a certain action. Where's the morality in that?
Moral high ground. Torture is as wrong as it gets. Right down there genocide, child molestation, and not turning off your cell in the movie theater.


Its kind of cold and under normal circumstances I would never advocate torture but I have to ask myself in Young's mind how many lives can be saved in locating the Lucian Alliance
As far as Young knew, one. Rush.

[JustAnotherVoice]

Morality double standards. Society tells us torture is wrong, against human rights and other humanitarian reasons, but how many of us would not pull a Jack Bauer in Young's situation? He's looking out for his own people, people he's promised to get home. He's collecting on the tolls paid to Charon - blood for blood. He sacrifices a little bit of his humanity, but he's looking out for the lives of 70+ people (counting losses through attrition) who are all far away from prying eyes and beaurocratic crap (except for Camille).

Kiva probably has similarly ideallistic visions of why she's torturing Rush, but she's definately bat guano crazy, so I don't know what to say about her...

[jelgate]

Moral high ground. Torture is as wrong as it gets. Right down there genocide, child molestation, and not turning off your cell in the movie theater.


As far as Young knew, one. Rush.I think he was thinking more then that. The Lucian Alliance went to great lengths to get to Destiny before. They would have no problem killing many continue their efforts

[s09119]

Moral high ground. Torture is as wrong as it gets. Right down there genocide, child molestation, and not turning off your cell in the movie theater.

So you would absolutely let the rest of civilization burn to keep your hands clean? That's just as sickening as any of the things you listed.

[DigiFluid]

I think he was thinking more then that. The Lucian Alliance went to great lengths to get to Destiny before.
How could he possibly know that? They had no idea where the 9th chevron went until they got there, and weren't even sure till this episode that it was the Lucian Alliance who attacked Icarus.

[DigiFluid]

So you would absolutely let the rest of civilization burn to keep your hands clean? That's just as sickening as any of the things you listed.
Right and wrong is not a numbers game.

[Krazeh]

Right and wrong is not a numbers game.

It's also not as black and white as some posters would like to claim.

[jelgate]

How could he possibly know that? They had no idea where the 9th chevron went until they got there, and weren't even sure till this episode that it was the Lucian Alliance who attacked Icarus.

But thier were willing to kill many to get the 9th chevorn. It seems they still are

[EllieVee]

Moral high ground. Torture is as wrong as it gets. Right down there genocide, child molestation, and not turning off your cell in the movie theater.


As far as Young knew, one. Rush.

It's not like Young would care about that. He's already left Rush for dead and stated he didn't care if Rush died.

[Cold Fuzz]

Right and wrong is not a numbers game.

In the case of the Destiny crew, it absolutely is a numbers game--and goes far beyond it. If you torture someone (and NOT kill them) and the information extracted ends up saving even one life, it then it's absolutely worth it. Do you know why? You CANNOT restore someone's life. Who ever was tortured will be scarred, yes. A scarred psyche can be mended with time, but the person lives. You would trade a scarred psyche for an innocent life? How about the life of TJ's baby? I don't advocate torture but when extraordinary circumstances arise, extreme measures sometimes are necessary--and not just for the greater good, but to save even ONE life. Your moral high ground is not worth an innocent person's life.

[JustAnotherVoice]

Right and wrong is not a numbers game.

The Western notion of "right" and "wrong" is strongly influenced by the Bible, is it not?


You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.

[EllieVee]

The Western notion of "right" and "wrong" is strongly influenced by the Bible, is it not?

So?

[Krazeh]

I think it should be remembered that by trying to extract information from Telford they're also attempting to save his life. If they were to disconnect the stones and return him to the LA then they would undoubtedly kill him for having failed in his mission and being no further use to them. If however they can find out where Rush is and rescue him then Telford can safely return to his body.

[s09119]

The Western notion of "right" and "wrong" is strongly influenced by the Bible, is it not?

The Bible is largely just a collection of views, ideas, and codes already expressed by those that came before, but your quote is valid nonetheless. People have realized since the dawn of time that sometimes the few must be sacrificed so that the many may live. We embrace this idea on many levels, most-commonly in the military, where a small percentage of the population fights and dies so that the vast majority need not.

[DigiFluid]

The Western notion of "right" and "wrong" is strongly influenced by the Bible, is it not?
Torture fell out of favour was abolished by civilized countries on Earth a century ago, and then was codified after the atrocities witnessed in the Second World War. History and changing public opinion rightly drove out torture.

Besides that, I'm an atheist ;)

[Krazeh]

So?

I think your question was answered by the quote he included from John 11:50.

[Krazeh]

Torture fell out of favour was abolished by civilized countries on Earth a century ago, and then was codified after the atrocities witnessed in the Second World War. History and changing public opinion rightly drove out torture.

Please, just because "civilized" countries talk about having stopped using torture and there being laws against it's use doesn't mean that it doesn't continue to be used by these countries when they deem it necessary.

[EllieVee]

I think your question was answered by the quote he included from John 11:50.

And I repeat, so?

I'm not influenced by the Bible other than to occasionally point out the hypocrisy of cherry picking it to bolster arguments that cannot be make on their own merits.


Please, just because "civilized" countries talk about having stopped using torture and there being laws against it's use doesn't mean that it doesn't continue to be used by these countries when they deem it necessary.

And you write that as though it's perfectly fine to do so, which it is not.

[s09119]

Torture fell out of favour was abolished by civilized countries on Earth a century ago, and then was codified after the atrocities witnessed in the Second World War. History and changing public opinion rightly drove out torture.

Besides that, I'm an atheist ;)

...except it wasn't abolished.

[Krazeh]

And I repeat, so?

I'm not influenced by the Bible other than to occasionally point out the hypocrisy of cherry picking it to bolster arguments that cannot be make on their own merits.


I think the point was that, as s09119 pointed out earlier, the concept of sacrificing the few for the sake of the many has been around for a considerable amount of time and that on occasion individuals have to suffer for the sake of others.


And you write that as though it's perfectly fine to do so, which it is not.

I'm not saying that it's perfectly fine but I don't think that it's always the case that it's the wrong thing to do.

[EllieVee]

I think the point was that, as s09119 pointed out earlier, the concept of sacrificing the few for the sake of the many has been around for a considerable amount of time and that on occasion individuals have to suffer for the sake of others.

And it's also helpful if you hate the person who's body is being occupied, no?


I'm not saying that it's perfectly fine but I don't think that it's always the case that it's the wrong thing to do.

:rolleyes:

[DigiFluid]

...except it wasn't abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Municipal_law

More than a century.

[s09119]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Municipal_law

More than a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Still happens today.

[DigiFluid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Still happens today.
I said civilized countries.

[s09119]

I said civilized countries.

The base in question was an outpost of the United States of America.

Also, why are the Iraqis any less "civilized" than us?

[Krazeh]

And it's also helpful if you hate the person who's body is being occupied, no?

I fail to see what that has to do with the moralities of torture, but even if Young does still passionately hate Rush (which I don't beleive is the case) I think he's learnt that he does need Rush around and he's not going to torture or kill him for the sake of it.


:rolleyes: Do you believe killing someone is wrong? Does that belief extend to all situations, to the extent that you would let others die through inaction rather than kill someone?

[DigiFluid]

The base in question was an outpost of the United States of America.
I realize that.


Also, why are the Iraqis any less "civilized" than us?
Mostly because the US military bombed them into the stone age over false allegations. And before that, their government was a selfish, murderous, torturous body.

[Demerzel]

The big big thing in this episode that I really, really was unhappy about. First Young is happy to throw out due process, suggesting he'll get an answer out of Telford by any means necessary--and O'Neill appears to be okay with it despite Daniel's objection. And then we've got Kiva prattling on about how she's learned over the years that torture is effective, who is proven right by Rush giving in :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif

I'm pretty sure you don't watch 24. Watching Rush get zapped by a space-taser is really tame, in my opinion, compared to Jack Bauer disemboweling a terrorist after cutting him slowly to pieces (literally), and leaving his insides on the floor (which you actually see). In both cases though, it was crucial to obtain information for the greater good as we all know that sacrificing one life in order to save many is usually the right thing to do. And as Asimov said, never let morals get in the way of doing whats right.

[s09119]

I realize that.

So what are you saying? I posted an instance of Americans, "civilized" people, torturing. And you responded by clarifying that you meant "civilized" people don't torture. Your argument seems busted then and there.


Mostly because the US military bombed them into the stone age over false allegations. And before that, their government was a selfish, murderous, torturous body.

The nightmare that was the lead-up to and the subsequent invasion aside, the Iraqi people as a whole are no less civilized than those of any other nation.

[DigiFluid]

So what are you saying? I posted an instance of Americans, "civilized" people, torturing. And you responded by clarifying that you meant "civilized" people don't torture. Your argument seems busted then and there.

The nightmare that was the lead-up to and the subsequent invasion aside, the Iraqi people as a whole are no less civilized than those of any other nation.
There's nothing wrong with some neighbourly ribbing ;)

Besides that, you keep ignoring that I'm talking governments here. No government that endorses torture can rightfully be called anything other than barbaric.

[Krazeh]

There's nothing wrong with some neighbourly ribbing ;)

Besides that, you keep ignoring that I'm talking governments here. No government that endorses torture can rightfully be called anything other than barbaric.

Would that be public endorsement or behind closed doors kind of endorsement?

[Cold Fuzz]

I copied this from a post I made to a similar thread:

There's an interesting juxtaposition in this episode: Kiva using torture for evil purposes, for personal gain and potentially murder vs. Young, who is using torture to save lives. The former is unacceptable while the latter is. I believe that's what the writers are trying to bring across with the episode.

[EllieVee]

I fail to see what that has to do with the moralities of torture, but even if Young does still passionately hate Rush (which I don't beleive is the case) I think he's learnt that he does need Rush around and he's not going to torture or kill him for the sake of it.

He stated Rush was important in Air. This did not prevent him from bashing the man and leaving him to die on a planet in Justice. Nor did it prevent him from threatening to pull the plug in Human despite the great possibility that Rush might die or stating that he didn't care if Rush killed himself. He's already done so and said so 'for the sake of it'.


Do you believe killing someone is wrong?

Yes.


Does that belief extend to all situations, to the extent that you would let others die through inaction rather than kill someone?

Ah, the unanswerable question. I can't answer that and seriously, nor can anyone else until they are put into that situation. I can only state what I think now which is torture is wrong. I cannot answer a hypothetical.

[s09119]

There's nothing wrong with some neighbourly ribbing ;)

Besides that, you keep ignoring that I'm talking governments here. No government that endorses torture can rightfully be called anything other than barbaric.

So practically every government on Earth is barbaric, at least in practice. But isn't that what matters? Actions speak louder than words.

[DigiFluid]

Torture is not practices by "practically every government on Earth,"

[Krazeh]

Ah, the unanswerable question. I can't answer that and seriously, nor can anyone else until they are put into that situation. I can only state what I think now which is torture is wrong. I cannot answer a hypothetical.

It's only unanswerable if you wish to avoid actually considering your own moral views and choices. For anyone willing to do however it's perfectly simple to answer, once you've considered your views that is. Furthermore if you can't answer a hypothetical how can you claim that torture is always wrong? Or can you not accept that there could be situations in which torture would be necessary?

[s09119]

Torture is not practices by "practically every government on Earth,"

All the "civilized" countries you note have employed it at one time or another, many right up to the modern day.

[Demerzel]

Every time I try to convince myself that torture is wrong, I remember the first scene in the first episode of season 7 of 24. Bauer is accused of torturing a terrorist for information. He admits that torture is wrong and illegal, but points out that said terrorist had targeted a bus with like 40 people and 12 children. So torturing that guy saved the lives of all those people.

Would you honestly prefer to see the terrorist, a guy that attacked your country and innocent citizens, unharmed, and see 50 people die, rather than inflicting him a little pain to make him admit the truth, so you can save innocent lives?

I think some things are wrong but yet may become necessary sometimes. Killing is wrong. Yet we do it in self-defense, or to protect others.

[DigiFluid]

All the "civilized" countries you note have employed it at one time or another, many right up to the modern day.
Exactly. In the past, when it was still thought of as effective and acceptable. Neither is the case anymore. It's a sign of a bygone, less civilized time. It's been out for centuries.

[s09119]

Exactly. In the past, when it was still thought of as effective and acceptable. Neither is the case anymore. It's a sign of a bygone, less civilized time. It's been out for centuries.

...but as I just proved, it's still employed by "civilized" countries today, it's just that they publicly disown it.

[DigiFluid]

...but as I just proved, it's still employed by "civilized" countries today, it's just that they publicly disown it.
Then those governments are clearly barbaric and not welcome in civilized society. Saying something bad and then doing it anyway doesn't forgive it.

[JustAnotherVoice]

Torture fell out of favour was abolished by civilized countries on Earth a century ago, and then was codified after the atrocities witnessed in the Second World War. History and changing public opinion rightly drove out torture.

Besides that, I'm an atheist ;)

No, "government sanctioned" torture has been out of favour. Military internment camps across the world still do it through sleep deprivation, aural stimuli etc. It happens behind closed doors, and every time it gets out into the open, the media go nuts over it. I'm sure more than a few conspiracy theorists would claim that every government intelligence agency has people out there pulling finger nails and cutting fingers off all in the name of national security.


The Bible is largely just a collection of views, ideas, and codes already expressed by those that came before, but your quote is valid nonetheless. People have realized since the dawn of time that sometimes the few must be sacrificed so that the many may live. We embrace this idea on many levels, most-commonly in the military, where a small percentage of the population fights and dies so that the vast majority need not.

I'm not subscribing to it, I'm just saying that the western idea of morality (as well as a suspect view of history) has been highly influenced by that set of views/ideas/code.


So?

So, this is a debate on the morality of tortue. Everything about morality that you have been taught (assuming you come from a judeo-christian country) has been based off something that is actually quite pragmatic, even if it is filled with pointless dogma. Such an important cultural marker shouldn't be ignored because you don't see the immediate relevance. Like it or not, the Bible has had a hand in shaping western society, especially in North America, and while it may not condone torture in so many words, the "good book" clearly boils it down to a numbers game.

[s09119]

Then those governments are clearly barbaric and not welcome in civilized society. Saying something bad and then doing it anyway doesn't forgive it.

So the United States is barbaric and not welcome in civilized society? What about the United Kingdom? France? Spain? Germany?

[Demerzel]

Then those governments are clearly barbaric and not welcome in civilized society. Saying something bad and then doing it anyway doesn't forgive it.

The U.S. use torture a hell of a lot still, I'm sure. We'll never know what goes on in things like black ops and stuff that never appears on record. If you think it doesn't happen anymore, you are a bit naive. And yet America prides itself as the most civilized, powerful country in the world. Are you saying the U.S. don't belong in civilized society? :P

[Krazeh]

I'm sure more than a few conspiracy theorists would claim that every government intelligence agency has people out there pulling finger nails and cutting fingers off all in the name of national security.

To be honest I'm not sure you need to be a conspiracy theorist to have considered that this is a possibility.

[DigiFluid]

So the United States is barbaric and not welcome in civilized society? What about the United Kingdom? France? Spain? Germany?
For the third time, centuries ago. And the Bush regime was rightly shunned by most other countries for its crimes.

[s09119]

For the third time, centuries ago. And the Bush regime was rightly shunned by most other countries for its crimes.

All those countries have employed torture within the last century, some within the last decade. So for the third time, torture still happens even in the "civilized" world today. Bush and his administration may not have been the nicest of people, but they didn't authorize anything that any other head of state wouldn't or hasn't behind closed doors.

[Alexandria7]

So what are you saying? I posted an instance of Americans, "civilized" people, torturing. And you responded by clarifying that you meant "civilized" people don't torture. Your argument seems busted then and there.



The nightmare that was the lead-up to and the subsequent invasion aside, the Iraqi people as a whole are no less civilized than those of any other nation.

I admit to not having seen the episode yet, but I was interested in the thread.

Torture as a means of information retrieval, etc, for whatever reason has been abolished by the Geneva Convention. The USA is one of the countries that signed off on that. The black ops, water boarding, walling, and other torture means are illegal. The reason we can find any evidence of this practice by the United States is because Obama has adopted a full disclosure of Bush practices. As far as I know, there are still hearings going on over the full extent of these torture sessions. The person in charge of it all at the CIA and others involved with the knowledge of these practices have resigned. The Bush administration did it secretly and illegally and the people responsible are being brought to some form of justice. This was not a military action but a black ops/CIA action.

It would take more than a Colonel or General in the USAF to "allow" a torture session. It would have to be a Presidential Order. The main reason, besides the obvious legality of the situation is this information retrieved during torture cannot be and will never be considered reliable intel. The main reason for this is that people will say anything to stop the torture. Trusting this information will never prove to be good.

I once tried to bring the idea of torture (In 24) up to my father who is a Commander in the US Navy. I offered up the scenario that what if a terrorist was going to blow up NYC, and if you torture him or her, then maybe you could save millions of people.

His response: There is never, ever a good reason to torture anyone. It strictly goes against everything that we are and everything that the US military stands for. There is absolutely no justification for it. Then he proceeded to tell me that intel retrieved from torture is unreliable. He was very adamant in his response. There was no room for argument. I sincerely hope O'Neill didn't approve of the torture, if he did, then I'm afraid he's destroyed all respect I had for the character.

There's no way the military would allow it. Obviously the writers did not send this script to their military adviser, and more obviously, the Canadians do not know crap about the US military. They should not sacrifice realism for darkness.

[Demerzel]

All those countries have employed torture within the last century, some within the last decade. So for the third time, torture still happens even in the "civilized" world today. Bush and his administration may not have been the nicest of people, but they didn't authorize anything that any other head of state wouldn't or hasn't behind closed doors.

Also gotta realize that even though heads of state may ban torture, it doesn't mean that people down the chain of command won't do it anyway without authorization and off the record. And anyone who knows anything about the military knows that it happens. But we usually don't hear about it, and when we do, the media go crazy like someone said earlier.

[DigiFluid]

and more obviously, the Canadians do not know crap about the US military. They should not sacrifice realism for darkness.
Don't paint us all with one stroke. Great post otherwise, though.

[Demerzel]

I admit to not having seen the episode yet, but I was interested in the thread.

Torture as a means of information retrieval, etc, for whatever reason has been abolished by the Geneva Convention. The USA is one of the countries that signed off on that. The black ops, water boarding, walling, and other torture means are illegal. The reason we can find any evidence of this practice by the United States is because Obama has adopted a full disclosure of Bush practices. As far as I know, there are still hearings going on over the full extent of these torture sessions. The person in charge of it all at the CIA and others involved with the knowledge of these practices have resigned. The Bush administration did it secretly and illegally and the people responsible are being brought to some form of justice. This was not a military action but a black ops/CIA action.

It would take more than a Colonel or General in the USAF to "allow" a torture session. It would have to be a Presidential Order. The main reason, besides the obvious legality of the situation is this information retrieved during torture cannot be and will never be considered reliable intel. The main reason for this is that people will say anything to stop the torture. Trusting this information will never prove to be good.

I once tried to bring the idea of torture (In 24) up to my father who is a Commander in the US Navy. I offered up the scenario that what if a terrorist was going to blow up NYC, and if you torture him or her, then maybe you could save millions of people.

His response: There is never, ever a good reason to torture anyone. It strictly goes against everything that we are and everything that the US military stands for. There is absolutely no justification for it. Then he proceeded to tell me that intel retrieved from torture is unreliable. He was very adamant in his response. There was no room for argument. I sincerely hope O'Neill didn't approve of the torture, if he did, then I'm afraid he's destroyed all respect I had for the character.

There's no way the military would allow it. Obviously the writers did not send this script to their military adviser, and more obviously, the Canadians do not know crap about the US military. They should not sacrifice realism for darkness.

I'm wondering if we live in the same world. I suppose you are an idealist. :)

[DigiFluid]

She's quite correct.

[EllieVee]

It's only unanswerable if you wish to avoid actually considering your own moral views and choices. For anyone willing to do however it's perfectly simple to answer, once you've considered your views that is. Furthermore if you can't answer a hypothetical how can you claim that torture is always wrong? Or can you not accept that there could be situations in which torture would be necessary?

It's unanswerable because I don't know what I would do in that situation. I'm not avoiding my moral views which are that torture is wrong. Where did you miss me stating so? What I think you and other torture proponents want is for those to say it's wrong to say that they would do so so you can say, 'Aha! See!' But I won't do just to satisfy you. Too bad, so sad.

[s09119]

I admit to not having seen the episode yet, but I was interested in the thread.

Torture as a means of information retrieval, etc, for whatever reason has been abolished by the Geneva Convention. The USA is one of the countries that signed off on that. The black ops, water boarding, walling, and other torture means are illegal. The reason we can find any evidence of this practice by the United States is because Obama has adopted a full disclosure of Bush practices. As far as I know, there are still hearings going on over the full extent of these torture sessions. The person in charge of it all at the CIA and others involved with the knowledge of these practices have resigned. The Bush administration did it secretly and illegally and the people responsible are being brought to some form of justice. This was not a military action but a black ops/CIA action.

It would take more than a Colonel or General in the USAF to "allow" a torture session. It would have to be a Presidential Order. The main reason, besides the obvious legality of the situation is this information retrieved during torture cannot be and will never be considered reliable intel. The main reason for this is that people will say anything to stop the torture. Trusting this information will never prove to be good.

I once tried to bring the idea of torture (In 24) up to my father who is a Commander in the US Navy. I offered up the scenario that what if a terrorist was going to blow up NYC, and if you torture him or her, then maybe you could save millions of people.

His response: There is never, ever a good reason to torture anyone. It strictly goes against everything that we are and everything that the US military stands for. There is absolutely no justification for it. Then he proceeded to tell me that intel retrieved from torture is unreliable. He was very adamant in his response. There was no room for argument. I sincerely hope O'Neill didn't approve of the torture, if he did, then I'm afraid he's destroyed all respect I had for the character.

There's no way the military would allow it. Obviously the writers did not send this script to their military adviser, and more obviously, the Canadians do not know crap about the US military. They should not sacrifice realism for darkness.

Anyone who honestly believes that it is better to sacrifice millions of lives than torture someone is, plain and simply, wrong. I'd ask you to remember your opinion on the subject when your life depends on torturing someone for information, and then tell me how much you want to die so that the poor person in the interrogation room doesn't suffer any discomfort.

Furthermore, what is Young doing that qualifies as torture? He defended himself when Telford attacked him, and Greer defended his superior from said attack. Obviously he won't actually kill Rush, they need him. He's playing mind games with Telford, nothing more.

[Alexandria7]

Also gotta realize that even though heads of state may ban torture, it doesn't mean that people down the chain of command won't do it anyway without authorization and off the record. And anyone who knows anything about the military knows that it happens. But we usually don't hear about it, and when we do, the media go crazy like someone said earlier.

I do not think that is the case. It would never be a military practice. It's black ops CIA that are most often behind these things. Anyone who assumes this is what goes on in the US Military obviously does not know anyone in the US military. Please get your facts straight.

[Captain Obvious]

Moral high ground. Torture is as wrong as it gets. Right down there genocide, child molestation, and not turning off your cell in the movie theater.

See, my line is just drawn one after yours. Ideologically we are almost on the same page.The question is, have you paddled a waitress with a ping pong paddle for serving you Canadian bacon as real bacon? lord knows I have.

[s09119]

I do not think that is the case. It would never be a military practice. It's black ops CIA that are most often behind these things. Anyone who assumes this is what goes on in the US Military obviously does not know anyone in the US military. Please get your facts straight.

There are quite a few documented cases of the United States military torturing suspects for information. Ditto for the militaries of other nations.

[EllieVee]

Anyone who honestly believes that it is better to sacrifice millions of lives than torture someone is, plain and simply, wrong. I'd ask you to remember your opinion on the subject when your life depends on torturing someone for information, and then tell me how much you want to die so that the poor person in the interrogation room doesn't suffer any discomfort.

Furthermore, what is Young doing that qualifies as torture? He defended himself when Telford attacked him, and Greer defended his superior from said attack. Obviously he won't actually kill Rush, they need him. He's playing mind games with Telford, nothing more.

How quickly people seem to have forgotten that Young needed Rush so much that he beat the crap out of him and left him on a planet to die.

[DigiFluid]

Anyone who honestly believes that it is better to sacrifice millions of lives than torture someone is, plain and simply, wrong. I'd ask you to remember your opinion on the subject when your life depends on torturing someone for information, and then tell me how much you want to die so that the poor person in the interrogation room doesn't suffer any discomfort.

Furthermore, what is Young doing that qualifies as torture? He defended himself when Telford attacked him, and Greer defended his superior from said attack. Obviously he won't actually kill Rush, they need him. He's playing mind games with Telford, nothing more.

United Nations Convention Against Torture:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession

[Demerzel]

She's quite correct.

Wrong to torture, yet right to invade other countries where we're not wanted, pretending to do it for righteous reasons yet doing it for other motives. A lot of officers that carry the burden of command and know when to do what's needed, will not mind hurting one criminal in order to save many innocent lives. And I can't say I pity the criminal. The thing is, most of the times nobody knows it's going on.

[s09119]

United Nations Convention Against Torture:

So policemen torture all the time when they made threats they never intend to make good on to people in the interrogation room. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, because I have several family members who have made lifelong careers out of police work that can testify that it and similar things happen fairly routinely.

[Alexandria7]

Anyone who honestly believes that it is better to sacrifice millions of lives than torture someone is, plain and simply, wrong. I'd ask you to remember your opinion on the subject when your life depends on torturing someone for information, and then tell me how much you want to die so that the poor person in the interrogation room doesn't suffer any discomfort.

Furthermore, what is Young doing that qualifies as torture? He defended himself when Telford attacked him, and Greer defended his superior from said attack. Obviously he won't actually kill Rush, they need him. He's playing mind games with Telford, nothing more.

The reason it's wrong is for this - The intel will likely to prove false. My father's not a man to sacrifice his integrity for anything. I once held your belief though, but I'm not military. But I bet that some psycho terrorist who wants to kill people would give up false information. He might send everyone to the Statue of Liberty when the Empire State Building is rigged to blow. He not only stopped the torture but still accomplishes his ultimate plan. Torture information is unreliable.

I'll use a stargate example. Think of the replicators. How many times have O'Neill, Sheppard, and gang tricked the replicators. They gave false information during "torture" and beat the replicators.

Teyla used this technique with the Wraith Queen. The Queen thought she was extracting plans out of Teyla's mind, but it turned out she walked into a trap.

[DigiFluid]

So policemen torture all the time when they made threats they never intend to make good on to people in the interrogation room. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, because I have several family members who have made lifelong careers out of police work that can testify that it and similar things happen fairly routinely.
A bluff you'll send someone to jail is far cry from physical abuse and attempted murder.

[JustAnotherVoice]

I do not think that is the case. It would never be a military practice. It's black ops CIA that are most often behind these things. Anyone who assumes this is what goes on in the US Military obviously does not know anyone in the US military. Please get your facts straight.

Gitmo was a black ops operation?!

[Krazeh]

It's unanswerable because I don't know what I would do in that situation. I'm not avoiding my moral views which are that torture is wrong. Where did you miss me stating so? What I think you and other torture proponents want is for those to say it's wrong to say that they would do so so you can say, 'Aha! See!' But I won't do just to satisfy you. Too bad, so sad.

No, what i'd like to see is people accept the simple truth that morality is a relative concept. The whole point of the question is to get people to examine whether they could view the killing of one person, which is normally considered to be an immoral act, to be the correct course of action when it would save 1 or more other people. In most cases it's rhetorical anyway as people, for the most part, have accepted that there are times when killing people is the correct course of action to take, e.g. in times of war or police officer's protecting innocent people.

However, if you don't know what you'd do in the situation I posed how is it you know what you'd to in every situation where torture was a possibility? Why is it that the consideration of taking a human life to save others is apparently an impossibility to answer before you're in a situation where you'd need to make that decision but the consideration of torture to save others is something you can immediately give an answer to?

[DigiFluid]

Gitmo was a black ops operation?!
She said "most often", not "100% of the time without fail."

Reading comprehension ftw :p

[s09119]

The reason it's wrong is for this - The intel will likely to prove false. My father's not a man to sacrifice his integrity for anything. I once held your belief though, but I'm not military. But I bet that some psycho terrorist who wants to kill people would give up false information. He might send everyone to the Statue of Liberty when the Empire State Building is rigged to blow. He not only stopped the torture but still accomplishes his ultimate plan. Torture information is unreliable.

I'll use a stargate example. Think of the replicators. How many times have O'Neill, Sheppard, and gang tricked the replicators. They gave false information during "torture" and beat the replicators.

Teyla used this technique with the Wraith Queen. The Queen thought she was extracting plans out of Teyla's mind, but it turned out she walked into a trap.

Any interrogation, torture or not, could reveal false intelligence. But when you're out of options, what else are you going to do? Sit there and ask really nicely when you have minutes before countless civilians die? I'm not saying it's right, moral, or something we should be doing left and right, but there are circumstances where you have to do whatever is necessary.

[s09119]

She said "most often", not "100% of the time without fail."

Reading comprehension ftw :p

The point is that "civilized" nations sometimes openly sanction "uncivilized" things for the greater good.

Reading comprehension ftw :P

[DigiFluid]

Any interrogation, torture or not, could reveal false intelligence. But when you're out of options, what else are you going to do? Sit there and ask really nicely when you have minutes before countless civilians die? I'm not saying it's right, moral, or something we should be doing left and right, but there are circumstances where you have to do whatever is necessary.
It's well-documented that torture produces unreliable information. So what you're out of options? You're just going to torture for s**ts and giggles?

[Krazeh]

She said "most often", not "100% of the time without fail."

Reading comprehension ftw :p

She also said "It would never be a military practice". That sounds like quite a strong view that the US Military would never torture people.

[s09119]

It's well-documented that torture produces unreliable information. So what you're out of options? You're just going to torture for s**ts and giggles?

Prove to me that torture always, 100% of the time, gives unreliable information and we'll end this right here. But if you can't your entire argument falls apart.

[Krazeh]

It's well-documented that torture produces unreliable information. So what you're out of options? You're just going to torture for s**ts and giggles?

So the correct thing to do is just give up and let those people die instead of taking the chance that you might obtain some useful information?

[Demerzel]

I do not think that is the case. It would never be a military practice. It's black ops CIA that are most often behind these things. Anyone who assumes this is what goes on in the US Military obviously does not know anyone in the US military. Please get your facts straight.

Your father being a Commander unfortunately doesn't mean that you automatically know everything that goes on among the millions of soldiers in the US military. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of officers are of your father's opinion. Yet there are those that are not. This isn't a game. This is war. Our enemies don't care about our laws, or the lives they take to make their points. If you were a soldier, defending your country, and you knew that the guy sitting in front of you knew how to prevent a bomb from killing thousands of people, including your family, I'd be curious to see what you'd do, after he spits in your face and laughs at you as if those lives meant nothing at all.

Torture happened, and happens. Doesn't make it right, but to believe that the US military doesn't practice it is to be downright naive. I bet there are factions/minorities in every government on earth that are pro-torture, but keep it quiet.

[Alexandria7]

I'm wondering if we live in the same world. I suppose you are an idealist. :)

LOL - an idealist? Nah. I just accumulate information wherever I hear it. I'm not denying that torture is used in many places. It does. I don't think that the US military would readily do it without some sort of higher authority authorizing it.

[EllieVee]

No, what i'd like to see is people accept the simple truth that morality is a relative concept. The whole point of the question is to get people to examine whether they could view the killing of one person, which is normally considered to be an immoral act, to be the correct course of action when it would save 1 or more other people. In most cases it's rhetorical anyway as people, for the most part, have accepted that there are times when killing people is the correct course of action to take, e.g. in times of war or police officer's protecting innocent people.

You don't have moral absolutes? The bit I've bolded is completely unprovable, by the way.


However, if you don't know what you'd do in the situation I posed how is it you know what you'd to in every situation where torture was a possibility? Why is it that the consideration of taking a human life to save others is apparently an impossibility to answer before you're in a situation where you'd need to make that decision but the consideration of torture to save others is something you can immediately give an answer to?

I've said that torture is wrong. Have I said I wouldn't torture someone? I don't think I have? I think I've said I wouldn't know what I'd do in that situation until faced with that situation, have I not? I don't have a difference stance if it's killing someone. :)

[DigiFluid]

Prove to me that torture always, 100% of the time, gives unreliable information and we'll end this right here. But if you can't your entire argument falls apart.
rofl no it doesn't. Torture is both wrong and unreliable. These are facts.

It always astonishes me that there are people willing to argue in favour of it. All this "would you torture to save this" nonsense is a ludicrous strawman argument. Would you violently rape a woman to save your mother's life? Would you torture a child to death to save your own? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no justification for torture, ever.

[Devilshock]

First of all Young never tortured to gain information. Telford started the fight and got beat down by Greer. Young has to do everything he can to protect Earth and the Destiny. We dont know if Telford gave more than the Icarus Base details. Torture should never be used and by the way Telford would be dead if he goes back into is body any way.

[JustAnotherVoice]

She also said "It would never be a military practice". That sounds like quite a strong view that the US Military would never torture people.

The argument I was pointing out.


The point is that "civilized" nations sometimes openly sanction "uncivilized" things for the greater good.

Reading comprehension ftw :P


She said "most often", not "100% of the time without fail."

Reading comprehension ftw :p

Back to the original morality and numbers argument.

[DigiFluid]

First of all Young never tortured to gain information.
Threat of suffocation is torture both physical and mental.

[s09119]

rofl no it doesn't. Torture is both wrong and unreliable. These are facts.

It always astonishes me that there are people willing to argue in favour of it. All this "would you torture to save this" nonsense is a ludicrous strawman argument. Would you violently rape a woman to save your mother's life? Would you torture a child to death to save your own? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no justification for torture, ever.

...so you're insisting that torture has never, in all of history, yielded useful intelligence? Okay, sure, let's go with that.

And yes, if it meant saving innocent lives, I would do immoral things. Compromising my own sense of morality or innocence to prevent others from a horrible fate is something I could live with, however painful it may be.

[Demerzel]

Threat of suffocation is torture both physical and mental.

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?

[DigiFluid]

...so you're insisting that torture has never, in all of history, yielded useful intelligence? Okay, sure, let's go with that.
Nice try, but twisting words does nothing to enhance your own argument. I said it was "wrong and unreliable", not "wrong and always incorrect". Torture demands certainty of results to be even remotely justifiable; though it's still wrong.

[DigiFluid]

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?
Suffocating someone isn't simply 'being mean', it's physical and mental abuse with very clear consequences.

[Krazeh]

You don't have moral absolutes?

Very few, if any. I don't think i'd hold anything as an absolute, to do so prevents you from self-examination.


The bit I've bolded is completely unprovable, by the way.

Perhaps so, maybe there are large numbers of people who think that it'd be better to allow someone to live even if doing so meant the death of others. I don't personally know any of these people and can only talk about my own experience with what people think. I do however concede I could have made that clearer.


I've said that torture is wrong. Have I said I wouldn't torture someone? I don't think I have? I think I've said I wouldn't know what I'd do in that situation until faced with that situation, have I not? I don't have a difference stance if it's killing someone. :)

So you think torture is wrong but are open to the possibility that it could be a necessary evil?

[s09119]

Nice try, but twisting words does nothing to enhance your own argument. I said it was "wrong and unreliable", not "wrong and always incorrect". Torture demands certainty of results to be even remotely justifiable; though it's still wrong.

Why does it demand certainty? Nothing in life is ever 100% certain, no police sting, no military raid, no arrest, no anything. Why is torture any different? As long as we're reasonably sure and the stakes are too high to ignore, why must we sit there and let people die for no reason?

[JustAnotherVoice]

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?

Aren't both of them, under American law, excusable from normal rights? Suspected terrorists get shipped off to detainment without due process and traitors (they have more than enough corroborating evidence against Telford to get a conviction) get executed?

[Alexandria7]

I said that it was not a military practice. It's the CIA rather that's come under heavy fire for torture. The whole full disclosure was about CIA practices, not military practices. The Central Intelligence Agency, for those that might not know, is not a branch of military. It's a division of the Department of Defense.

If it was discovered that a General or a Colonel, or anyone in the US military was behind an interrogation, the military would hang them out to dry. Literally. They would have the big chicken dinner, a dishonorable discharge, and would likely face a hearing on their actions. They'd probably be in jail for so long they'd forget what it felt to be free. And don't think that that a lowly military officer would be saved for "following" orders. They would also have the same treatment.

So if an interrogation with torture scene occurred on Destiny. If it gets out, then whoever knew about it/were involved with it in the US military would officially be dishonorably discharged. It would not only wreck their career in the military, but make it near impossible to find work if they weren't locked up for life. The military takes a hard stance on it and they will make an example of the people involved.

I read back where someone claimed they knew cops that would beat up suspects. You're right, it happens. And it's most often caught on tape. The officers will usually go to jail for it.

[EllieVee]

So you think torture is wrong but are open to the possibility that it could be a necessary evil?

Nice try at twisting my words but no cookie. :)

[DigiFluid]

Why does it demand certainty? Nothing in life is ever 100% certain, no police sting, no military raid, no arrest, no anything. Why is torture any different? As long as we're reasonably sure and the stakes are too high to ignore, why must we sit there and let people die for no reason?
Because it's based on a monumentally wrong crime against humanity. A police sting, military raid, or arrest are based on intelligence building, not coerced information which is as likely to be correct as not.

[Demerzel]

Suffocating someone isn't simply 'being mean', it's physical and mental abuse with very clear consequences.

I'll bring back my argument that killing is wrong, yet we do it when it's absolutely needed and it's not considered "wrong". So killing a terrorist during a chase after he blows up a bomb is okay, but hurting him a bit to prevent the bomb from going off at all is wrong. Right?

[spinny magee]

I don't see a reason why anyone should care about this, and sending the wrong message? Teh?

It's a show

NEXT complaint

[Alexandria7]

I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest.

[DigiFluid]

I'll bring back my argument that killing is wrong, yet we do it when it's absolutely needed and it's not considered "wrong". So killing a terrorist during a chase after he blows up a bomb is okay, but hurting him a bit to prevent the bomb from going off at all is wrong. Right?
And therein you reveal the fault in your own argument. Torture isn't about hurting "a bit", it's about pushing someone physically and mentally into the fear of death. Having to downplay the wrongness of your own argument is a sure sign of fault.

And yes, still it's wrong.

[Krazeh]

Nice try at twisting my words but no cookie. :)

How am I twisting words? I think we can agree that you think torture is wrong? Which then leaves us with 2 options, you either take the view that torture should never ever ever be something that is done, or you take the view that even though it's wrong you can accept that could be circumstances in which it's a necessary evil. So which is it? If, as you claim, you've said that you wouldn't know what you'd do in the situation and that you haven't said you wouldn't not torture someone then that would imply to me that you fall into the latter camp. If however i'm wrong i'd love to hear an explanation of what I've got wrong.

[Demerzel]

I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest.

He won't be. Even Weir technically authorized Ronon to torture Kavanagh. It went on record that she authorized it, even though it didn't happen. Did she get fired? Newp! And Jack is a hell of a lot more powerful and important and needed than Weir ever was.

[JustAnotherVoice]

I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest.

Somehow I don't think Jack would care. He's always cared about the people more than the uniform, so I would imagine that he'd get the courts martial, but it would be swept under the rug (you know, for saving the Earth a dozen times). As long as the torture resulted in getting his people to safety from the biggest potential threat they've faced so far. Not to mention rooting out a mole for their enemy, which could result in more SGC personnel losing their lives needlessly. Jack would probably call it retirement rather than punishment.

[Alexandria7]

There is one thing that makes it easy for Terrorist to strike at the free world. It's our freedom. It's illegal to take someone off the street, to a secret government building, and beat the crap out of them for information like what happens in many middle eastern/African nations. If you believe this happens in the US, then you watch too much television and perhaps should seek help on your paranoia/conspiracy theory issues. :P

Anyway, with the way Obama is now, I sincerely doubt that any torture would be allowed from the CIA or the US military.

[JustAnotherVoice]

Anyway, with the way Obama is now, I sincerely doubt that any torture would be allowed from the CIA or the US military.

Isn't that the point we've been arguing over? It's never been allowed, but it happens in the shadows?

[Krazeh]

Because it's based on a monumentally wrong crime against humanity. A police sting, military raid, or arrest are based on intelligence building, not coerced information which is as likely to be correct as not.

I would argue that doing nothing is equally a monumentally wrong crime against humanity. If you had the opportunity to do something that could have saved the lives of innocents and chose to do nothing simply because the information you might have obtained couldn't be guaranteed to be 100% certain then I don't see how you could consider yourself to be morally superior to someone who did take that chance.

[Demerzel]

And therein you reveal the fault in your own argument. Torture isn't about hurting "a bit", it's about pushing someone physically and mentally into the fear of death. Having to downplay the wrongness of your own argument is a sure sign of fault.

And yes, still it's wrong.

It was more of a sarcasm, really. A terrorist being scared to death and in pain, but ultimately living after spilling the beans and avoiding the death of a lot of people, is better than a lot of dead people and an eventually executed terrorist/traitor.

Once you cross the line into terrorism or traitor territory, you forfeit your rights and turn your back on laws. Why do those who get caught suddenly expect those laws they spat on, to suddenly protect them?

[Alexandria7]

He won't be. Even Weir technically authorized Ronon to torture Kavanagh. It went on record that she authorized it, even though it didn't happen. Did she get fired? Newp! And Jack is a hell of a lot more powerful and important and needed than Weir ever was.

Yep - you're right. The show is not very realistic, why would they start now? LOL. Besides, I also like Jack Bauer beating people up in 24 too. And yes, I keep a kill count of the show too. :P

But then again, Jack's been locked up and faced many senate hearing committees. I'd love to see some consequences for people's actions in SG.

[Alexandria7]

Once you cross the line into terrorism or traitor territory, you forfeit your rights and turn your back on laws. Why do those who get caught suddenly expect those laws they spat on, to suddenly protect them?

Sadly, because they do. They use our laws of freedom against us.

[Demerzel]

There is one thing that makes it easy for Terrorist to strike at the free world. It's our freedom. It's illegal to take someone off the street, to a secret government building, and beat the crap out of them for information like what happens in many middle eastern/African nations. If you believe this happens in the US, then you watch too much television and perhaps should seek help on your paranoia/conspiracy theory issues. :P

Anyway, with the way Obama is now, I sincerely doubt that any torture would be allowed from the CIA or the US military.

The US military doesn't allow gay people. Thus, I am completely convinced that there is no gay people in the US military. Because that'd be against the rules. If it's against the rules, it can't possibly still go on behind closed doors.

Right?

[Alexandria7]

Isn't that the point we've been arguing over? It's never been allowed, but it happens in the shadows?

It didn't happen in the so called shadows. The President of the US gave orders/allowed it. I argued it would take more than a General to allow something like that. It takes a presidential order. The case in point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration

[JustAnotherVoice]

Sadly, because they do. They use our laws of freedom against us.

Which is why justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb. Criminals in western societies often have more constitutional rights than victims. Laws pervert the spirit of justice into anonymity for rapists, cushy sentences for career criminals and traumatised victims with no support. Human rights indeed.

[Alexandria7]

The US military doesn't allow gay people. Thus, I am completely convinced that there is no gay people in the US military. Because that'd be against the rules. If it's against the rules, it can't possibly still go on behind closed doors.

Right?

Actually I believe the rule is don't ask, don't tell. So as long as you're not openly gay, and no one outs you, you are allowed to serve. So the bill actually allows gays to serve in the military.

[Demerzel]

It didn't happen in the so called shadows. The President of the US gave orders/allowed it. I argued it would take more than a General to allow something like that. It takes a presidential order. The case in point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration

The President doesn't sign off on everything that happens in the hundreds of military bases and law enforcement officers in the country, or on what happens in other countries that is done by US soldiers. The Colonel in charge that gets faced with the choice of torturing an enemy they just captured, or risk facing some dire threat, doesn't have the time to go up the chain of command up to the Big P. Sometimes stuff just happens and is done, without someone considering the implications and consequences it could have down the road.

[JustAnotherVoice]

It didn't happen in the so called shadows. The President of the US gave orders/allowed it. I argued it would take more than a General to allow something like that. It takes a presidential order. The case in point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration

So something classified "top secret," meant for "secret detention centres around the world" isn't shadowy? Just because it came from the top down, it doesn't mean it didn't happen in the shadows.

[Demerzel]

Which is why justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb. Criminals in western societies often have more constitutional rights than victims. Laws pervert the spirit of justice into anonymity for rapists, cushy sentences for career criminals and traumatised victims with no support. Human rights indeed.

Green'ed. Let's protect those that try to kill people, while their victims never got a choice.

Land of the Free. Never thought the "Free" would be those people that are trying to blow up the "Land".

[KEK]

this is SGU it's supposed to be darker

Darker doesn't mean stupid. Torture doesn't work, any expert will tell you that, because people will say anything to make the pain stop, and bad intel is potentially more dangerous than having none at all.

[Demerzel]

Darker doesn't mean stupid. Torture doesn't work, any expert will tell you that, because people will say anything to make the pain stop, and bad intel is potentially more dangerous than having none at all.

Torture doesn't ALWAYS work, you mean. It's undeniable that in certain cases, it works very well. Not everyone is some badass guy that's impervious to torture and will feed you some elaborate lie to make it stop. Try making up a lie while busy gurgling.

[Doorlocks]

Those advocating torture always seem to take a couple things as given: 1. that torture absolutely will succeed (and is usually the only solution to a problem), and 2. that not using torture is tantamount to admitting defeat, to doing nothing (and usually results in the 'destruction of civilization').

Take this scenario: someone has planted a nuke in a city. You have him in custody, but he won't reveal the location of the bomb. The bomb will detonate in an hour (or ten, it doesn't really matter).

Those advocating torture insist that the suspect must be tortured. The assumption is that torture will result in the suspect giving up the location of the bomb. This is, as I've said, taken as a given. But it's not. The outcome of a situation is never a given (which is why "The Greater Good" is such a pernicious and dangerous thing. There is no greater good, there is only your individual actions and an uncertain future). And anyone who has the conviction to blow up a city can probably stand up to torture.

To those who would refuse to torture the suspect, those advocating torture usually respond with something like, "So you would let all those people die to keep your hands clean!?" And the answer is...no. I would do many other things, trying to save as many lives as I could - all of them, if possible. At the very least, I would announce to the people of the city that there was a bomb about to explode and that they should probably get out of town. There are always other options.

Then there's the ever popular rationalization that, "Sure, torture is bad, but in this situation you should try to save lives by any means necessary." Buuuut...people who say that never really mean it. Staying with my terrorist/nuke scenario, and accepting for the moment that we should use Any. Means. Necessary...why not bribery? I mean, if we're considering all the options...why not a million dollars? Or a roll in the hay? Or the state of Utah? I guarantee that these tactics will have a far higher success rate. But, of course, that is unacceptable. There are lines that just cannot be crossed.

[EllieVee]

How am I twisting words? I think we can agree that you think torture is wrong? Which then leaves us with 2 options, you either take the view that torture should never ever ever be something that is done, or you take the view that even though it's wrong you can accept that could be circumstances in which it's a necessary evil. So which is it? If, as you claim, you've said that you wouldn't know what you'd do in the situation and that you haven't said you wouldn't not torture someone then that would imply to me that you fall into the latter camp. If however i'm wrong i'd love to hear an explanation of what I've got wrong.

How you've got it wrong is that there isn't a choice. I've said what I mean so please, don't try to spin it into what you want me to say. It is what it is.

[KEK]

Torture doesn't ALWAYS work, you mean. It's undeniable that in certain cases, it works very well. Not everyone is some badass guy that's impervious to torture and will feed you some elaborate lie to make it stop. Try making up a lie while busy gurgling.

It's got nothing to do with the victim being strong, and purposely deceiving the interrogator. They're put in situation where they don't care. They aren't saying things to help their cause, or help the interrogators, they're saying things solely for the purpose of making the pain stop. I'm sure truth has been gained through it, along with many lies, the point is the information still can't be trusted either way.

[Demerzel]

It's got nothing to do with the victim being strong, and purposely deceiving the interrogator. They're put in situation where they don't care. They aren't saying things to help their cause, or help the interrogators, they're saying things solely for the purpose of making the pain stop. I'm sure truth has been gained through it, along with many lies, the point is the information still can't be trusted either way.

There are still those that will break and tell the truth, by simple fear that it will be discovered if they lie. To say that torture -always- generate false intel is ridiculous.

[KEK]

There are still those that will break and tell the truth, by simple fear that it will be discovered if they lie.

I think you being naive here. By all accounts real torture isn't anything like what you see on TV, these people aren't cool customers quietly plotting a way out of the situation they're in, they're distraught, disorientated, terrified individuals who will say anything to make the torture stop.


To say that torture -always- generate false intel is ridiculous.

I never said torture always generates false intel (although I'm willing to bet that to some degree it almost always does), what I'm saying is that either way it can't be trusted, as you don't know what's true and what isn't, the very nature of the information means that it can't be considered reliable.

[Demerzel]

I think you being naive here. By all accounts real torture isn't anything like what you see on TV, these people aren't cool customers quietly plotting a way out of the situation they're in, they're distraught, disorientated, terrified individuals who will say anything to make the torture stop.

I never said torture always generates false intel (although I'm willing to bet that to some degree it almost always does), what I'm saying is that either way it can't be trusted, as you don't know what's true and what isn't, the very nature of the information means that it can't be considered reliable.


Then you favor inaction? If you had the one person able to stop a major terrorist act in front of you and he refused to speak, you'd just drop it without even trying and wait for the bomb to blow up, wipe out those people, then go have a good night of sleep?

[eonflux]

First, this is show...

Second, go back to setting in front of your TV watching your episode and eating your dinner in the comfort of your safe home. And don't worry about these kinds of things. I come from the Netherlands and I love my country. And I respect what people do for me so that the above is possible. If torture is a means to get info from someone, and I say some you know 100% has more information but is holding back. You go right ahead! wont hear any complains from me.

I respect your opinion, anyone is entitled to it. I don't know where you live. But if you lived in the US. And that guy was successfull in blowing up half times square. I wouldn't care less if they beated him to an inch of his life just to get more info.

Well this is my opinion on the whole matter. Maybe harsh.

[KEK]

Then you favor inaction? If you had the one person able to stop a major terrorist act in front of you and he refused to speak, you'd just drop it without even trying and wait for the bomb to blow up, wipe out those people, then go have a good night of sleep?

Ticking bomb scenarios don't exist in real-life. They're a fallacy of television used for drama, or in a politicians case, as an argument to ignore basic human rights.

[pipi]

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif

There was a message? This isn't a fairy tale that has a moral at the end of the story. Nor is it a political tool for any agenda.

[Phenom]

Never. Survival is nothing without morality.

Luckily for you, I would torture if necessary to save billions of lives, thus allowing you to live and sip tea in a Buddhist colony, thinking about morals and trees falling in the forest when nobody is around to hear them.

[Wayston]

Darker doesn't mean stupid. Torture doesn't work, any expert will tell you that, because people will say anything to make the pain stop, and bad intel is potentially more dangerous than having none at all.

You're assuming that said intel will be relied upon without any further thought. Intelligence gathering is partly about gathering raw data and partly about sifting through the muck for useful information. The torturer's job is to gather raw data which will be sifted through. Torture is simply one of several available routes to gather potentially useful information. Nobody will believe you at your word simply because you have an electricity wire taped around your balls. So yes you may get false information, but that is something the interrogators are aware of. This could be retaliated with by tuning up the torture if your lies are revealed, until the point where you do start telling the truth.

Although you are correct that torture is very effective at gathering the information the interrogator would like to hear, like a phony confession to a crime or something.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Torture is dangerous and not very useful. It only works if you can quickly confirm or refute the information given by the person being tortured. If you can do that why are you torturing the person in the first place? If you can't do that how do you know the person you are torturing isn't lieing to get the torture to stop? Torture is dangerous and not very useful.

[wargrafix]

Torture is stupid because it never works and more often than not the information will be false anyways. I am really disappointed they had it in this episode. That series 24 was quite nasty and lets face it, Racist.

[Krazeh]

How you've got it wrong is that there isn't a choice.

What? There isn't a choice? About what?


I've said what I mean so please, don't try to spin it into what you want me to say. It is what it is.

Yes and it's been clear as mud. You apparently think torture is wrong but have also said that you wouldn't not torture someone or that you'd know what you'd do in a situation where torture may be the only possibility to obtain the information you need until you were actually in that situation. Where have I spun anything into saying what I want you to say? All I've tried to do is clarify what exactly it is you're saying but each time you evade the question and instead try to claim i'm twisting your words.

[EllieVee]

What? There isn't a choice? About what?



Yes and it's been clear as mud. You apparently think torture is wrong but have also said that you wouldn't not torture someone or that you'd know what you'd do in a situation where torture may be the only possibility to obtain the information you need until you were actually in that situation. Where have I spun anything into saying what I want you to say? All I've tried to do is clarify what exactly it is you're saying but each time you evade the question and instead try to claim i'm twisting your words.

I've written precisely what I mean. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. You're looking for hidden meanings, spinning what I say into what you want. Where did I say that I know what I'd do in a situation where torture is a possibility? Haven't I said I don't know what I'd do? I haven't said I'd not torture someone. I said I don't know. You're spinning faster than a doubleheaded coin, Krazeh.

[Phenom]

I would fold under torture. Be stuffed with pain man. I like my testicles just the way they are thank you very much and I would very much prefer if they didn't become acquainted with that nasty looking sharp medical looking tool.

So yes, I am sure there are a lot more people out there who, like me, would choose Testicles over Information.

[Krazeh]

I've written precisely what I mean. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. You're looking for hidden meanings, spinning what I say into what you want. Where did I say that I know what I'd do in a situation where torture is a possibility? Haven't I said I don't know what I'd do? I haven't said I'd not torture someone. I said I don't know. You're spinning faster than a doubleheaded coin, Krazeh.

My apologies, when I read one of your previous messages I got the 'would' and 'wouldn'ts' a little mixed up and I concede that you didn't say that you wouldn't not torture someone. As for the second part of the sentence you were bolded that was supposed to be read as a continuation of what you wouldn't do or know, so you wouldn't know what you'd do in a situation where torture may be the only possibility to obtain the information you need until you were actually in that situation. Which is what it appears you're confirming in the above quoted post?

If that is the case then the point still stands that if you don't know what you'd do then you must be open, even if only to a tiny degree, to the possibility that torture may be the correct course of action even if it's considered wrong in other circumstances. If you're not open to that possibility and instead hold the view that torture is never something you should do then I don't see how you couldn't know what you'd do in such situation when the only two choices are use torture or don't.

[EllieVee]

My apologies, when I read one of your previous messages I got the 'would' and 'wouldn'ts' a little mixed up and I concede that you didn't say that you wouldn't not torture someone. As for the second part of the sentence you were bolded that was supposed to be read as a continuation of what you wouldn't do or know, so you wouldn't know what you'd do in a situation where torture may be the only possibility to obtain the information you need until you were actually in that situation. Which is what it appears you're confirming in the above quoted post?

If that is the case then the point still stands that if you don't know what you'd do then you must be open, even if only to a tiny degree, to the possibility that torture may be the correct course of action even if it's considered wrong in other circumstances. If you're not open to that possibility and instead hold the view that torture is never something you should do then I don't see how you couldn't know what you'd do in such situation when the only two choices are use torture or don't.

Because I don't know. Take it or leave but you're not going to get a different answer. I. Don't. Know. That's it.

[Krazeh]

Because I don't know. Take it or leave but you're not going to get a different answer. I. Don't. Know. That's it.

That's fine, it answers the question I was asking anyway, just through the implicit route rather than an explicit statement.

[EllieVee]

That's fine, it answers the question I was asking anyway, just through the implicit route rather than an explicit statement.

It wasn't a hint as to which way I'd go.

[Krazeh]

It wasn't a hint as to which way I'd go.

I never said it was, nor does it need to be.

[rlr149]

A bluff you'll send someone to jail is far cry from physical abuse and attempted murder.
-------------------

United Nations Convention Against Torture:
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession


and yet STILL against your precious article. strange thats ok to you really.

if someone is accused falsly how do you prevent the mental abuse/stress from them maybe being locked up awaiting trial, arguably "severe mental suffering" stress that could be prevented.

[wolverine_nl]

The are torturing Telford (with the airventing) to bring him to the edge of death, so he realises he is brainwashed (or not). Teal'c was brainwashed and then brought to the edge.
We are still talking about this episode i hope and not torture in general. It's a TV Show, torture was always in Stargate, it shows how bad a bad guy was and also that in scifi series it is needed.

[garhkal]

I think it should be remembered that by trying to extract information from Telford they're also attempting to save his life. If however they can find out where Rush is and rescue him then Telford can safely return to his body.

That s an interesting slant on it. BUT i doubt;t it occurred to them.


In both cases though, it was crucial to obtain information for the greater good as we all know that sacrificing one life in order to save many is usually the right thing to do

By who's judgement though? Sacrificing what we hold dear to stay alive imo is wrong, as if you are no longer what you were.


Anyone who honestly believes that it is better to sacrifice millions of lives than torture someone is, plain and simply, wrong.

Then i guess to you i am wrong. If i define myself as being X and i have to sacrifice X to be 'saved' have i really survived? THAT is why i am against it.


It always astonishes me that there are people willing to argue in favour of it. All this "would you torture to save this" nonsense is a ludicrous strawman argument. Would you violently rape a woman to save your mother's life? Would you torture a child to death to save your own? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no justification for torture, ever.

Agreed. For those making these 'hypothetical arguments.. here's one back. you have a pregnant woman who has had a key inserted that would unlock both your food and hand restraints. Would you kill her to get it as that is the only way to dig it out?


I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest

And he is the one on earth. BUT after seeing a 2 star recently get a slap on the wrist for his 3rd DUI (iirc) compared to several dozen enlisted who got booted for their 2nd, i doubt he will have anything happen other than being asked to retire.


Which is why justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb. Criminals in western societies often have more constitutional rights than victims. Laws pervert the spirit of justice into anonymity for rapists, cushy sentences for career criminals and traumatised victims with no support. Human rights indeed.

That is one LONNNNGGGG discussion, not appropriate for here, so i will just leave it at "I agree".

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

OK so there's 8 pages of back and forth here, so I apologise if I miss anyone's points. Torture has been stated by some to be ineffective, and that US military members will not use it. Now for reference sake the UN's definition of torture is

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."


Step forward one Colonel Allen Westhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician), who while serving in Iraq had a suspect tortured, he threatened the man's life, had his troops assault the man and conducted a mock execution on him, firing his pistol next to the man's head. Said suspect had information about an imminent attack on US forces, the old ticking time bomb scenario. The man gave the information and the attack was thwarted. Colonel West was brought up on charges, however he wasn't hung out to dry, he was fined $5000 after admitting his actions, allowed to resign with full benefits, received widespread support from the public, serving soldiers and 95 members of congress wrote a letter supporting him. Oh and he's now a United States Congressional Candidate.

The idea that torture is ineffective is a fairly recent one, a nice way to justify not using it. Is this actually the case? Not really no. Torture can be ineffective and unreliable, but no more so than any other form of interrogation can be. Morality aside in order to be effective it simply has to be used in the right situation. Aside from examples like Colonel West you have groups like the KGB who used torture effectively in counter espionage operations, running pleasant little places like Lubyanka. During the Second World War MI5 ran a highly effective counter intelligence operation, turning every single German spy in Britain bar one, into a double agent. It was a very simple choice laid out, work for us, reveal your secrets, feed false information, reveal all your contacts, betray more agents entering into the country or we interrogate you vigorously for whatever useful information they can prize out of you then we shoot you. That their quite clearly torture, German agents were turned under the threat of death. It was also one of the most successful espionage counter-operations of all time.

Now taking us back to the episode we have a ticking bomb scenario, the SGC are compromised, the Lucian Alliance are planning an operation, there is an imminent threat to life to SGC personnel. Military personnel, while being officially banned from torture, are perfectly happy to bend the rules with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or even as the case with Allen West shows simply break the rules and accept the consequences later.


In this case we do not even have Young being authorised to torture Telford, O'Neill simply told him to take the interrogation to the next level. The interrogation, aside from Telford being restrained, had simply been Telford being questioned. O'Neill should the matter came up could simply argue that he authorised Young to began enhanced interrogation.

In the end what Young did was torture, but it is not unrealistic. The official line of most western militaries is that torture is not conducted, most people in the military however would have no problem with kicking the crap and threatening a prisoner with vital information, especially if that information would impact the safety of the men under their command.

Morally speaking people might not like it, but the characters in SGU aren't supposed to be there as uptight moral examples, nor do they have to share your moral values. The idea that Young could torture people in a given situation is true to his character and his characters background. So too is the idea that O'Neill would tacitly support this, O'Neill comes from a background of black ops, involvement with the CIA and illegal operations. He was as we saw in SG1 in eps like "the Gamekeeper" involved with snatch and grabs in East Germany, the illegal kidnapping of a foreign national in another country without that nations approval. Considering this is his background I don't put it past O'Neill that he would have no problem authorising the torture of a suspect.

[wargrafix]

^^^^
Morality aside? Morality should never be swept aside.
It was swept aside during the previous administration years. It should be something they should always be held accountable for. And NEVER forgiven.

Using torture is inexcusable. It is no better than the crimes they were being accused of.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

^^^^
Morality aside? Morality should never be swept aside.
It was swept aside during the previous administration years. It should be something they should always be held accountable for. And NEVER forgiven.

Using torture is inexcusable. It is no better than the crimes they were being accused of.

Well firstly I was talking about torture on a purely clinical level at that point, in comparison with other interrogation techniques in effectiveness. On a moral level you might not condone the use of torture, however its not unrealistic that O'Neill and Young would have no problem in the right situation torturing people.

[Tuvok]

You can be "dark" without straying to the wrong side of right and wrong.

Thats a contridiction.

To be truly dark you go to dark places. Otherwise your just grey. Or the pepsi of Dark, the diet coke of Dark as it were. They went to a bad place for a good reason.

Said aloud, while understandable does leave me feeling a little discomfort over the fact...

[s09119]

^^^^
Morality aside? Morality should never be swept aside.
It was swept aside during the previous administration years. It should be something they should always be held accountable for. And NEVER forgiven.

Using torture is inexcusable. It is no better than the crimes they were being accused of.

So when your life depends on someone being tortured for information, I would like you to go up to the person due to be interrogated and tell them how much you're looking forward to dying because his captors will not torture.

Besides, someone's previous comment was right; SG-1 tortured Teal'c before, to get him to realize he had been brainwashed. Sweep it away however you like, but it was still torture and it produced a positive effect.

[leiasky]

The big big thing in this episode that I really, really was unhappy about. First Young is happy to throw out due process, suggesting he'll get an answer out of Telford by any means necessary--and O'Neill appears to be okay with it despite Daniel's objection. And then we've got Kiva prattling on about how she's learned over the years that torture is effective, who is proven right by Rush giving in :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif


O'neill has done some 'damn distasteful things' in his career and it didn't surprise me at all that he sanctioned the torture. Daniel was completely in character disagreeing with Jack and that's the only scene in the entire episode where I felt Daniel was believably used. It was a gerat thing to see.

[blackluster]

The Western notion of "right" and "wrong" is strongly influenced by the Bible, is it not?

John 11:50 ~ "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
Just a note on the above, the verse quoted there is actually being spoken by Caiaphas, a head priest among the pharisees. He was using the above statement in order to justify the execution of Jesus in order to save them from the Romans. As such, the verse as been incorrectly quoted as to the subject of this thread, since it does not reflect the morals taught through the bible.

As to the topic, well, torturing people must certainly be wrong even if it is required to save lives. Placing myself in a kill or be killed scenario or some other where torture was an option, I could not say that I would not commit that evil, but I'd like to think that if I were able to stay true to my beliefs, then I would not select torture. The "no other way" argument seems like a cop-out to me, since there is always another way, torture is simply an immediate solution. If my choice not to torture led to the death of people, then I would blame myself for being unable to see the other solution, not for being unable to commit an evil act. At the end of the day, I think in those involved would have to seriously consider what led to that desperate scenario in the first place.

[Coronach]

I find this topic very interesting, as it (so far) has been completely concerned with whether or not torture (as of yet undefined) is morally permissible in various situations. Yet it seems everyone is ignoring the very real additional problems that come along if we say "yes" to torture. So maybe humor me for a second, and let's assume that torture is a morally permissible means of interrogation of a given suspect. Then I have a few questions:

Who is allowed to torture, and who is allowed to be tortured? Can only male criminals be tortured or is it permissible to do the same to a female? Along those lines, must the torturer be the same sex as the one being tortured? Why or why not? Can police do it if it's a similar "ticking timebomb" scenario, or must the person in question be a terrorist involved with the military in some way?

What sorts of things are permissible to be used as torture techniques? Only physical harm or can we delve into mental and emotional harm? Along with this, if the stakes are as high as these hypothetical situations claim...is it permissible to torture said person's family or close friends in order to get them to talk? What if the person simply has an incredibly strong will and simply will not talk after repeated torture? Is it then okay to torture family and friends because many other people's lives are at stake? Where do we draw the line?

Going further with techniques again, what do we use? Waterboarding? Maiming? Burning? What about rape? I'm not trying to be disgusting, but you'll find it's incredibly hard to advocate maiming over rape, though I'd suspect many would find rape as a torture technique to be reprehensible and would try to argue something else.

Finally, all of these hypothetical situations involve some sense of "knowing" that the person in question has the information. But is this necessary? Can we torture someone if we simply suspect that they have the information we need? And how long can it go if we aren't given the information we're so convinced that they possess?

I'd like to point out that I don't feel like getting into the specifics of the morality of torture itself, because a lot of it has been hashed out quite well in the previous pages. I'm more interested in how we can get past the absolute arbitrariness of implementing torture techniques in given situations.

None of the questions I posed are unanswerable by any means. In fact, I'd suspect that many of them DO have answers that most people would agree on. On the flip side, it's certainly not an exhaustive list of questions and guidelines one might hope to set up.

In conclusion, I merely just wanted to highlight a small fraction of the issues that will crop up if we are to accept torture as morally permissible in some situations. These questions do not negate torture by default, but I think it represents some of the more practical (rather than theoretical) concerns that torture would bring along.

Hope that wasn't too incomprehensible. :cool:

[EllieVee]

Just a note on the above, the verse quoted there is actually being spoken by Caiaphas, a head priest among the pharisees. He was using the above statement in order to justify the execution of Jesus in order to save them from the Romans. As such, the verse as been incorrectly quoted as to the subject of this thread, since it does not reflect the morals taught through the bible.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/style_emoticons/default/rofl1.gifhttp://www.dolforums.com.au/style_emoticons/default/rofl1.gifhttp://www.dolforums.com.au/style_emoticons/default/rofl1.gifhttp://www.dolforums.com.au/style_emoticons/default/rofl1.gif

*little tearies*

This is precisely what I meant by cherry picking in my previous post. http://www.dolforums.com.au/style_emoticons/default/rofl1.gif Bolstering the argument by quoting the pro-execution of Jesus guy. Thanks!

[pipi]

Send him to Egypt and be done with it. :)

[Duneknight]

i think torture in this case is acceptable, Telford ruined alot of lives and he wasnt gonna cooperate so what else is there to do? i just felt so bad for Rush being tortured twice at the same time by two different people in different places.

[icsteffi]

What was happening to Rush was torture. I don't really see the torture on Telford. So far there have been bruises and blood---basically from a fight between two men, which Telford started. And threat. The decompression of that room is not affecting him yet. Its a threat. Threat and torture are different. We will have to see what happens at the beginning of next weeks episode to decide. (This was just my initial reaction while on this thread! I could change my mind, don't jump on me!) :)

[kymeric]

The human race is barabric, but its hardly our fault given how we were raised. We need as a species to rise above the example of our "parents" and civilize our planet. It may be a messy and unpleasant task.

[JustAnotherVoice]

Just a note on the above, the verse quoted there is actually being spoken by Caiaphas, a head priest among the pharisees. He was using the above statement in order to justify the execution of Jesus in order to save them from the Romans. As such, the verse as been incorrectly quoted as to the subject of this thread, since it does not reflect the morals taught through the bible.


For the biblical morality, sure, but it fits in with the "for the good of the many argument" it was originally responding to. Jesus was a radical upstart, and the "bad guy" in his scenario, yes?

The moral issue does still stand, however. It advocates the exectution of a single person for the (percieved) benefit of the masses. Just because it was Jesus getting the shaft, it doesn't make the idea "older than, and advocated by the bible" any less relevant.

[Captain Obvious]

And yes, if it meant saving innocent lives, I would do immoral things. Compromising my own sense of morality or innocence to prevent others from a horrible fate is something I could live with, however painful it may be.

I work as a bouncer. I can, and have, done some pretty awful things "for the greater good". I beat the living tar out of a man who slashed his GF in the stomach with a knife, breaking his jaw and putting him in the hospital.

I am of the school of thought that "the greater good" is generally what you want to go with, even if it means doing something distasteful.

[Phenom]

^^^^
Morality aside? Morality should never be swept aside.
It was swept aside during the previous administration years. It should be something they should always be held accountable for. And NEVER forgiven.

Using torture is inexcusable. It is no better than the crimes they were being accused of.

A lot of people are jumping on a moral stance of torture being bad simply because on face value it appears to be a bad thing to do. Unfortunately, in this place we live in called reality, sometimes bad things have to be done to stop much worse things happening.

[s09119]

A lot of people are jumping on a moral stance of torture being bad simply because on face value it appears to be a bad thing to do. Unfortunately, in this place we live in called reality, sometimes bad things have to be done to stop much worse things happening.

What I find stranger is that people don't bat an eyelash at all the killing done along the same lines and for the same reasons as torture, but find torture itself to be irredeemably reprehensible in every and all situations.

[EllieVee]

What I find stranger is that people don't bat an eyelash at all the killing done along the same lines and for the same reasons as torture, but find torture itself to be irredeemably reprehensible in every and all situations.

Such as, in relation to this episode?

[s09119]

Such as, in relation to this episode?

I meant just in general and within this discussion, not in relation to "Subversion" in particular.

[EllieVee]

I meant just in general and within this discussion, not in relation to "Subversion" in particular.

Oh, perhaps you could refer me then to posts that are okay with murder but not torture?

[s09119]

Oh, perhaps you could refer me then to posts that are okay with murder but not torture?

I'm not going to go through 9 pages and link you to all of them. And I said "killing," not "murder."

[EllieVee]

I'm not going to go through 9 pages and link you to all of them. And I said "killing," not "murder."

I don't recall any posts though there's been plenty of accusations such as this.

[Iffy]

So when your life depends on someone being tortured for information, I would like you to go up to the person due to be interrogated and tell them how much you're looking forward to dying because his captors will not torture.

Besides, someone's previous comment was right; SG-1 tortured Teal'c before, to get him to realize he had been brainwashed. Sweep it away however you like, but it was still torture and it produced a positive effect.

All torture gets you is what you want to here. Hurt someone bad enough they will tell you anything. Torture is a cost efficient way to scare people so they do what you want them to.

[The Swarm]

But its soooo barbaric... id hate lowering myself to that level. :P

[wargrafix]

A lot of people are jumping on a moral stance of torture being bad simply because on face value it appears to be a bad thing to do. Unfortunately, in this place we live in called reality, sometimes bad things have to be done to stop much worse things happening.

Rationalizing torture is no better than condoning it. Regimes which use it like no better than to convince people they are doing to 'protect" them, the citizens. Unfortunately, all torture does is harden the hearts who are being tortured, the those who support them.

Rather than find out why things happen and change attitudes, all the opposite side chose is the instant fix. This is why worse things happen later on.
What is shameless is the amount of people who rationalize it and condone it. those people might as well condone slavery or the holocaust because it suited the needs for the people of the era. Actually, torture belongs with those horrors of those eras.

For this episode, it shows the terrible leader young is, and in alot of ways Telford is right about what Earth did. As much as I dislike the Camille character, she is right. Young is setting up a situation for another rebellion.

[Phenom]

Rationalizing torture is no better than condoning it. Regimes which use it like no better than to convince people they are doing to 'protect" them, the citizens. Unfortunately, all torture does is harden the hearts who are being tortured, the those who support them.

Rather than find out why things happen and change attitudes, all the opposite side chose is the instant fix. This is why worse things happen later on.
What is shameless is the amount of people who rationalize it and condone it. those people might as well condone slavery or the holocaust because it suited the needs for the people of the era. Actually, torture belongs with those horrors of those eras.

For this episode, it shows the terrible leader young is, and in alot of ways Telford is right about what Earth did. As much as I dislike the Camille character, she is right. Young is setting up a situation for another rebellion.

Wow I didn't realise I was chatting to THE Carl Lewis. Mr Lewis I am a massive fan of your ability to jump, however I am a little shocked that your talents extended from physically flying through the air to jumping to completely far fetched comments in a discussion to try and justify your point of view.

Well I guess you will always have Seoul in '88!!!!

Seriously mate, thats comment was crap and out of order.

[RedXian]

To quote Michael Weston from Burn Notice:

"The fact is, torture is for sadists and thugs. It's like getting groceries with a flame thrower; it doesn't work and it makes a mess."

and

"Torture just gets you the fastest lie to make the pain stop"

Frankly, I tend to agree.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

To quote Michael Weston from Burn Notice:

"The fact is, torture is for sadists and thugs. It's like getting groceries with a flame thrower; it doesn't work and it makes a mess."

and

"Torture just gets you the fastest lie to make the pain stop"

Frankly, I tend to agree.

Yeah, that's a tv show, you know fiction.

The fact is there have been numerous cases where torture has been highly effective. The KGB didn't keep places like Lubyanka open simply for their own amusement. As a interrogation tactic its not more or less effective than any other form of interrogation, prisoners can string people along in many other ways. The main and only real argument against torture is the moral implications.

Rationalizing torture is no better than condoning it. Regimes which use it like no better than to convince people they are doing to 'protect" them, the citizens. Unfortunately, all torture does is harden the hearts who are being tortured, the those who support them.

Rather than find out why things happen and change attitudes, all the opposite side chose is the instant fix. This is why worse things happen later on.
What is shameless is the amount of people who rationalize it and condone it. those people might as well condone slavery or the holocaust because it suited the needs for the people of the era. Actually, torture belongs with those horrors of those eras.

For this episode, it shows the terrible leader young is, and in alot of ways Telford is right about what Earth did. As much as I dislike the Camille character, she is right. Young is setting up a situation for another rebellion.

You might find torture abhorrent on every level and utterly wrong to use it, but the fact remains that many people don't. There has been no one on this thread who has claimed that torture is a good thing, or that it isn't distasteful, but there are people on this thread who, like the characters would authorise it if there was an imminent threat to life. Funnily enough that's what Jack and Young decided to do, and like many military personnel their willing to threaten the life of someone if it concerns their men. If you hate it you hate it, but it fits the characters of these men.

As for everyone else's views of torture, maybe you'll just have to accept that not everyone follows the same moral beliefs as you.

[Krazeh]

So, for those people who are firmly against the idea of Young having tortured Telford, how would you have dealt with him?

[Blackhole]

The only torture that Telford has been subjected to is the evacuation of the compartment’s air. The resolution of what will happen to Telford in Rush’s body is still up in the air. If Telford cracks and gives the information Young is looking for and the door is opened and air is returned, then all damage done would be psychological. It would be unlikely any lasting damage i.e., arising from the O2 deprivation would occur. Given that RC is the primary character of the show it isn’t likely he is going to die or suffer any lasting damage and since there has been an exchange of consciousness, then Rush is not likely to remember what was done to his body either.

Imo the seriousness of the crime will depend on what is yet to happen. I am not saying that Young’s evacuation of the room is not wrong, just that it will be far worse if Rush’s body suffers any lasting damage or dies. If his bluff is successful in scaring Telford into divulging the location of the LA base this intell along with the confirmation that Telford is the mole and was responsible for the deaths of the 30 plus people, will more than justify Young’s actions in my mind. Personally I don’t like torture at all either, but if what we have witnessed is all Young has to do to extract the extremely valuable and life saving information then his dip into torture is a very small price to pay imo. I can understand the posters who view torture as unacceptable in any form but I think their intense condemnation of Young’s interrogation tactics in this particular situation is a shortsighted overreaction.

Young didn’t up the stakes to evacuating the air until he had successfully goaded Telford to confess and confirmed his guilt in front of General O’Neil and himself. It was a most effective display of a psychological form of interrogation. There was no physical duress employed. It was Telford that attacked Young and brought about Greer’s unwelcome attack. Young made it clear that he did not want or need Greer or Scott to intercede.

Telford by his own admission is an avowed traitor and murderer. The rapid extraction of the information by Young is a very small price to pay for Telford’s treatment imo. Subjecting a known traitor and murder to his final tactic is a world of difference from doing it to someone who has been picked up off the street with only a suspicion of guilt. For those so opposed I would like to hear what specific alternative interrogation techniques they would have employed?

I would also like them to explain how the lives that would be saved from the intell that is likely to be gained doesn’t more than offset the moral harm done to Telford from his limited “torture” in this instance?

Frankly, I think Young’s interrogation of Telford so far has been exemplary and far from morally reprehensible as some have maintained. The information Telford was withholding is vital to both Earth and Destiny's interests and Young is likely going to obtain it expertly. If a cowardly traitor and mass murder like Telford has to undergo some very rough treatment to obtain it, then so be it. To suggest that the moral fabric of our society will unravel from this one carefully administered and controlled, isolated and authorized instance is a shortsighted overreaction. Telford's necessary abuse for the greater good in this exceptional instance is justified and warranted imo.

Besides there is nothing to be gained from killing both Telford and Rush; even if he wanted revenge (which I don’t believe) there are far too many witnesses to get away with it. If Telford doesn’t crack and passes out then Young will open the door to the compartment and repressurize it. Young will have bluffed and Telford will have had the courage to wait him out. I don’t think it will go down this way. Telford has already demonstrated that he is a coward and is fully aware of just how much bad blood there is between Young and the both of them. Young is gambling that Telford will be too afraid to risk that he may just kill them both and will crack.

[wargrafix]

My comment was not crap and was in order. Rationalizing acts of torture is no better than the other terrible acts.

Administrations and individuals who use torture are cowards. Of course, cowardly is defined by Young. Nobody told Rush to go on the risky mission. Weir was right in Atlantis, they have no right to be playing Manifest Destiny on other cultures and worlds. Jack took a long time to get over his phobia of Russia.

[SGTB1991]

It's well-documented that torture produces unreliable information. So what you're out of options? You're just going to torture for s**ts and giggles?

Do you have links to any studies? Just curious because I wrote a paper on this a few years ago and I couldn't find any studies that decisively proved that torture was unreliable.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

My comment was not crap and was in order. Rationalizing acts of torture is no better than the other terrible acts.

Administrations and individuals who use torture are cowards. Of course, cowardly is defined by Young. Nobody told Rush to go on the risky mission. Weir was right in Atlantis, they have no right to be playing Manifest Destiny on other cultures and worlds. Jack took a long time to get over his phobia of Russia.
States rationalise terrible acts all the time. The United States for example is involved in the targeted assassination of terrorist leaders.

And it’s funny you should mention Weir. Because she’s guilty of authorising torture, on Kavanugh and on Caldwell.

[blackluster]

For the biblical morality, sure, but it fits in with the "for the good of the many argument" it was originally responding to. Jesus was a radical upstart, and the "bad guy" in his scenario, yes?lol, no, the point in the verse is actually showing the pharisees trying to mask their own fear of the Romans by demonizing Jesus. As would later be shown at Jesus' trial, the Roman's never had any real beef against Jesus, they were only reacting to the row the pharisees themselves were kicking up.


The moral issue does still stand, however. It advocates the execution of a single person for the (perceived) benefit of the masses. Just because it was Jesus getting the shaft, it doesn't make the idea "older than, and advocated by the bible" any less relevant.The issue remains in this thread, but your reference is still incorrect. There is a difference between documenting an event and advocating it's proceedings. I hope you can see that.

I'm not trying to alter your thinking on the topic of the thread, I just don't want you laboring under a misconception that a singular line of text grabbed quite badly out of context is actually a valid basis for an argument.

[DigiFluid]

The fact is there have been numerous cases where torture has been highly effective. The KGB didn't keep places like Lubyanka open simply for their own amusement.
rofl

Did you just try to prove that torture is legitimate and valid by citing the KGB and Soviet Union?

bwahahahahah

[Blackhole]

OK so there's 8 pages of back and forth here, so I apologise if I miss anyone's points. Torture has been stated by some to be ineffective, and that US military members will not use it. Now for reference sake the UN's definition of torture is

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."


Step forward one Colonel Allen Westhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician), who while serving in Iraq had a suspect tortured, he threatened the man's life, had his troops assault the man and conducted a mock execution on him, firing his pistol next to the man's head. Said suspect had information about an imminent attack on US forces, the old ticking time bomb scenario. The man gave the information and the attack was thwarted. Colonel West was brought up on charges, however he wasn't hung out to dry, he was fined $5000 after admitting his actions, allowed to resign with full benefits, received widespread support from the public, serving soldiers and 95 members of congress wrote a letter supporting him. Oh and he's now a United States Congressional Candidate.

The idea that torture is ineffective is a fairly recent one, a nice way to justify not using it. Is this actually the case? Not really no. Torture can be ineffective and unreliable, but no more so than any other form of interrogation can be. Morality aside in order to be effective it simply has to be used in the right situation. Aside from examples like Colonel West you have groups like the KGB who used torture effectively in counter espionage operations, running pleasant little places like Lubyanka. During the Second World War MI5 ran a highly effective counter intelligence operation, turning every single German spy in Britain bar one, into a double agent. It was a very simple choice laid out, work for us, reveal your secrets, feed false information, reveal all your contacts, betray more agents entering into the country or we interrogate you vigorously for whatever useful information they can prize out of you then we shoot you. That their quite clearly torture, German agents were turned under the threat of death. It was also one of the most successful espionage counter-operations of all time.

Now taking us back to the episode we have a ticking bomb scenario, the SGC are compromised, the Lucian Alliance are planning an operation, there is an imminent threat to life to SGC personnel. Military personnel, while being officially banned from torture, are perfectly happy to bend the rules with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or even as the case with Allen West shows simply break the rules and accept the consequences later.


In this case we do not even have Young being authorised to torture Telford, O'Neill simply told him to take the interrogation to the next level. The interrogation, aside from Telford being restrained, had simply been Telford being questioned. O'Neill should the matter came up could simply argue that he authorised Young to began enhanced interrogation.

In the end what Young did was torture, but it is not unrealistic. The official line of most western militaries is that torture is not conducted, most people in the military however would have no problem with kicking the crap and threatening a prisoner with vital information, especially if that information would impact the safety of the men under their command.

Morally speaking people might not like it, but the characters in SGU aren't supposed to be there as uptight moral examples, nor do they have to share your moral values. The idea that Young could torture people in a given situation is true to his character and his characters background. So too is the idea that O'Neill would tacitly support this, O'Neill comes from a background of black ops, involvement with the CIA and illegal operations. He was as we saw in SG1 in eps like "the Gamekeeper" involved with snatch and grabs in East Germany, the illegal kidnapping of a foreign national in another country without that nations approval. Considering this is his background I don't put it past O'Neill that he would have no problem authorising the torture of a suspect.

A very thoughtful post. So in your opinion is torture abhorrent or a necessary evil that needs to be judged when performed in a case by case basis?

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

rofl

Did you just try to prove that torture is legitimate and valid by citing the KGB and Soviet Union?

bwahahahahah
Nope, I just pointed put how effective it can be, not that it was moral or correct choice of action. Try rereading my posts.


A very thoughtful post. So in your opinion is torture abhorrent or a necessary evil that needs to be judged when performed in a case by case basis?

In my opinion torture is a necessary evil, at times. I’m very wary about state endorsed tortured, but I understand that military personnel in a stressful situation with imminent threat to life may resort to violent means to extract information from prisoners. If they do commit such actions then they should, as with my example of Allen West should admit their actions, a culture of secret and covered up torture is not healthy in any way.

[Briangate78]

Where's Jack Bauer when you need him. :p

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f165/nanny36/jack.jpg

[Ragitsu]

You'd think super-advanced technology that allows the retrieval of information much more efficiently than torture would either exist or be created by now in the Stargate universe, but noooo...:mckay:.

[Coronach]

You'd think super-advanced technology that allows the retrieval of information much more efficiently than torture would either exist or be created by now in the Stargate universe, but noooo...:mckay:.

I think there is, one example being those devices the Smurfs used, though there's many from both SG1 and SGA. Unfortunately, Young doesn't have any of said technologies available to him. :(

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

You'd think super-advanced technology that allows the retrieval of information much more efficiently than torture would either exist or be created by now in the Stargate universe, but noooo...:mckay:.

As Coronach states, it’s not that such technology doesn’t exist, just that the ancients didn’t intend Destiny, it being an exploratory vessel, to become the intergalactic version of 24.

[Blackhole]

Nope, I just pointed put how effective it can be, not that it was moral or correct choice of action. Try rereading my posts.

In my opinion torture is a necessary evil, at times. I’m very wary about state endorsed tortured, but I understand that military personnel in a stressful situation with imminent threat to life may resort to violent means to extract information from prisoners. If they do commit such actions then they should, as with my example of Allen West should admit their actions, a culture of secret and covered up torture is not healthy in any way.

I think torture is abhorrent but I am realistic enough to acknowledge that it is going to be done and in certain very limited cases is necessary. I think in the military it should only be allowed in very limited cases with high level authorization required and it should always be done in the open with severe penalties; if at a later time it was deemed inappropriate. Realistically an open environment sounds good but it isn't going to happen; as no one is going to want to take the chance that they will be singled out and punished. None of the high level officials of the Bush administration have received any meaningful sanctioning for their covert torture authorizations and from what I have read in the current administration nothing has changed and it continues as business as usual. Officials will continue to deny it occurs and it will go on in secret.

It is very easy to take the moral high ground when one is not personally affected. I doubt very many if at all of "the torture is wrong under any circumstances" group would be so certain if some psychopath had just kidnapped a school bus with one of their kids on it and buried it. Imagine the police have captured him but he refuses to disclose its location. It would be a very rare individual who would defend his protection against torture if it was going to cost them their child’s life. Most of these same moral individuals would have absolutely no problem doing whatever it took to force him to reveal the bus's location. I realize that these types of situations would be very rare and I am not trying to fault their convictions (I usually share them) but I am trying to point out that having someone personally to lose would likely change one’s absolute moral position.

On the flipside I feel I must say that these types of situations where the authorities know conclusively that the perp is guilty only exist in Hollywood. Detective work isn’t that good and the authorities usually make mistakes. Studies have been done of the guilt of the “enemy combatants” that were rounded up as a result of the Iraqi War and shipped to Gitmo and other similar places. It was estimated that around 8% if memory serves, had anything significant to do with terrorism. Most were innocent bystanders or very minor functionaries that had no business being imprisoned. Most of these individuals were tortured and held for years and many still are. The government knew they had screwed up big time and to avoid a PR nightmare denied any wrong doing and just kept them captive. Anyone who wants to verify my contentions go to the ACLU and/or Center for Constitutional Rights websites and read their documentation on the subject. It is eye opening and very alarming.

[wargrafix]

Where's Jack Bauer when you need him. :p

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f165/nanny36/jack.jpg

Hopefully someone is waterboarding Bauer. What a racist tripe 24 was.


The use of torture and the cutting off of any opposition would make someone hopefully lead a mutiny.

[Ragitsu]

How is 24 racist? On the show, there are good and bad guys of various ethnic backgrounds.

[Astrofighter]

On earth they have a modified goa'uld memory recall device that not only lets you see/take memories from one person but then copy and paste them into some one else

Again they don't physically have the tech on destiny

[DigiFluid]

Nope, I just pointed put how effective it can be, not that it was moral or correct choice of action. Try rereading my posts.
I read it just fine. Torture by the KGB in the Soviet Union was effective--at getting whatever they wanted to hear out of the victim. Hence all the 'confessions' to crimes against the state.

[Krazeh]

I read it just fine. Torture by the KGB in the Soviet Union was effective--at getting whatever they wanted to hear out of the victim. Hence all the 'confessions' to crimes against the state.

Out of curiousity what would you have done with Telford if you were in Young's position?

[DigiFluid]

Out of curiousity what would you have done with Telford if you were in Young's position?
Detain and interrogate him till Rush is rescued. Then switch bodies and charge him with treason on Earth.

You know, allow due process to take its course.

[jelgate]

Detain him till Rush is rescued. Then switch bodies and charge him with treason on Earth.

And when the Lucian Alliance kills more people because of Rush helping them you'll feel pretty stupid:P

[Krazeh]

Detain him till Rush is rescued. Then switch bodies and charge him with treason on Earth.

You know, allow due process to take its course.

And how are you going to rescue Rush when you have absolutely no idea where the cargo ship the LA kidnapped him with has gone? The galaxy is quite a large area to be searching with no clue where to start.

[DigiFluid]

And how are you going to rescue Rush when you have absolutely no idea where the cargo ship the LA kidnapped him with has gone? The galaxy is quite a large area to be searching with no clue where to start.
Legal interrogation, which has been demonstrated to be more effective than illegal and immoral torture.

[Krazeh]

Legal interrogation, which has been demonstrated to be more effective than illegal and immoral torture.

Such as? What methods would you use to get Telford to give up the location of the planet the LA have taken Rush to within a timescale that allows for a rescue to actually take place? They're not gonna keep Rush alive indefinitely, either he'd complete what they wanted him to do or he'd stall so long they'd kill him anyway.

[DigiFluid]

Such as? What methods would you use to get Telford to give up the location of the planet the LA have taken Rush to within a timescale that allows for a rescue to actually take place? They're not gonna keep Rush alive indefinitely, either he'd complete what they wanted him to do or he'd stall so long they'd kill him anyway.
I don't know, I'm not trained in interrogation techniques. But just because I don't know legitimate techniques, doesn't mean I would debase myself to the barbaric level of torture.

[Krazeh]

I don't know, I'm not trained in interrogation techniques. But just because I don't know legitimate techniques, doesn't mean I would debase myself to the barbaric level of torture.

Right, so you actually have no idea what you'd do with Telford apart from not inflicting any physical or mental harm in the slightest upon him. So you're just gonna ask him some questions and hope this trained soldier (who let's not forget has what appears to be extensive experience of working undercover so will no doubt be mentally very tough) breaks down and tells you what you want to know within a reasonable timescale? You're certainly optimistic, i'll give you that.

[DigiFluid]

Right, so you actually have no idea what you'd do with Telford apart from not inflicting any physical or mental harm in the slightest upon him. And you're just going to hope this trained soldier (who let's not forget has what appears to be extensive experience of working undercover so will no doubt be mentally very tough) breaks down and tells you what you want to know within a reasonable timescale? You're certainly optimistic, i'll give you that.
Gee, doing things the right way is really inconvenient :rolleyes:

[Krazeh]

Gee, doing things the right way is really inconvenient :rolleyes:

Except you have no idea how you'd go about doing things the "right way". You've already stated you have no idea what legitimate interrogation techniques there may be, or appear to have made any consideration of the training Telford would have recieved in anti-interrogation techniques. It may be very well that there's nothing that would fall within the scope of what you'd call "legitimate" interrogation techniques that could be used/relied on to break Telford and make him give up the information he's hiding. Furthermore you don't appear to be taking into account the somewhat unique situation of having a man's conciousness trapped inside another man's body, while the other man's conciousness and your body are in the hands of a galaxy-wide criminal organisation who are hidden on an unknown planet and will likely not spend too long before deciding to kill your body.

[jelgate]

Gee, doing things the right way is really inconvenient :rolleyes:
What if thier is no right thing?

[DigiFluid]

Except you have no idea how you'd go about doing things the "right way". You've already stated you have no idea what legitimate interrogation techniques there may be, or appear to have made any consideration of the training Telford would have recieved in anti-interrogation techniques. Nor do you appear to be taking into account the somewhat unique situation of having a man's conciousness trapped inside another man's body, while the other man's conciousness and your body are in the hands of a galaxy-wide criminal organisation who are hidden on an unknown planet and will likely not spend too long before deciding to kill your body.
I don't know how to perform surgery either, but I know I'm not going to it with a knife and fork on a conscious patient.

[Blackhole]

Step forward one Colonel Allen West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)), who while serving in Iraq had a suspect tortured, he threatened the man's life, had his troops assault the man and conducted a mock execution on him, firing his pistol next to the man's head. Said suspect had information about an imminent attack on US forces, the old ticking time bomb scenario. The man gave the information and the attack was thwarted. Colonel West was brought up on charges, however he wasn't hung out to dry, he was fined $5000 after admitting his actions, allowed to resign with full benefits, received widespread support from the public, serving soldiers and 95 members of congress wrote a letter supporting him. Oh and he's now a United States Congressional Candidate.

The attack wasn't thwarted, it never happened. It is interesting that the man he tortured was detained for 45 days and was never charged. An investigation suggested that the man had no involvement with the terrotists and that the information he gave Allen was fabricated out of fear of his life. The quote I am referencing follows:



West claimed that the tactic worked. "Mr. Hamoodi came forth with names, location, and method of attack." The attack was to occur near the Saba al Boor police station with rooftop snipers from Fallujah, after Hamoodi signaled to them what Humvee contained West.

Soldiers set up surveillance in hopes of catching those involved in the ambush, which was supposedly scheduled for the next day. But the attack didn't occur. A search of Hamoodi's home reportedly turned up no evidence of the plot.

Hamoodi, who was interviewed by the New York Times nine months after the interrogation, said that he was never involved in any assassination plot and that the information he gave was induced by fear of death.

Hamoodi was detained for 45 days, then released without having been charged. West told the Times, "It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."

This type of occurrence with information gained from torture is typical and imo goes a long way to show how just how unreliable a form of interrogation torture is.

[EllieVee]

Gee, doing things the right way is really inconvenient :rolleyes:


I don't know how to perform surgery either, but I know I'm not going to it with a knife and fork on a conscious patient.

Digi, I've already greened you. Stop it already. :P

[Krazeh]

I don't know how to perform surgery either, but I know I'm not going to it with a knife and fork on a conscious patient.

Wow, what a pointless analogy that bears no relevance to the issue at hand. Noone's asking you to actually interrogate someone, but that doesn't mean you can't do some basic research in defence of your argument. If you wanna state that Young's decision was wrong and that he should have used other methods to get the information out of Telford then i'd expect you to, at the very least, provide some examples of the sorts of methods you would have liked to have seen him use or where you'd drawn the line between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" interrogation techniques. For example, do you consider sleep deprivation to be legitimate? What about exposure to constant noise? Drugging?

[EllieVee]

Can we all at least agree that in terms of torture, Barney is a step too far?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Barneylogo.png

[DigiFluid]

Society is founded upon the idea that our collective ideals are more important than the individual. That's why we have constitutions and bills of rights, to enshrine these ideals as being most paramount part of our society. We, as a civilization, defined torture as a barbarous war crime centuries ago.

To torture anyone is a complete betrayal of everything that our society stands for. Men and women have died by the millions to defend ideals--and you're okay with just tossing them out the window because it's inconvenient to be principled?

I find that nothing short of appalling.

[s09119]

Society is founded upon the idea that our collective ideals are more important than the individual. That's why we have constitutions and bills of rights, to enshrine these ideals as being most paramount part of our society. We, as a civilization, defined torture as a barbarous war crime centuries ago.

To torture anyone is a complete betrayal of everything that our society stands for. Men and women have died by the millions to defend ideals--and you're okay with just tossing them out the window because it's inconvenient to be principled?

I find that nothing short of appalling.

Societal ideals are tossed out the window all the time when it comes to do-or-die situations. Besides, as people have pointed out many times in this thread, just because countries have signed agreements not to torture does not mean civilized nations don't use it very often right up to today.

[Blackhole]

After 11 pages of this debate do you really think either party is really trying to listen to the other anymore? At this point it is all about being right.

[Astrofighter]

Arm chair quarter back on torture is nice and neat. Let's put it more simple and realistic. You are locked in a room with a guy who has kidnapped your loved ones and they are about to die in under an hour if you can't reach them. With all of your current knowledge and skills right now, what would you do? Sit back and talk to him, ok he doesn't tell you a single thing and the time keeps ticking away. Still nothing? Oh too bad time has run out your family is dead, at least you still have your morals.

[Ragitsu]

Morals above all else?

[Krazeh]

Society is founded upon the idea that our collective ideals are more important than the individual. That's why we have constitutions and bills of rights, to enshrine these ideals as being most paramount part of our society. We, as a civilization, defined torture as a barbarous war crime centuries ago.

To torture anyone is a complete betrayal of everything that our society stands for. Men and women have died by the millions to defend ideals--and you're okay with just tossing them out the window because it's inconvenient to be principled?

I find that nothing short of appalling.

It's all very nice having these sorts of ideals but they just don't fit with the real world. It's great talking about how torture is something that our civilizations have ruled as barbarous and that torturing anyone is a betrayal of everything society stands for and the millions of people who've died to defend ideas but it completely ignores the fact, as pointed out by s09119, that torture is used around the world by a significant number of countries, including those who would like to consider themselves "civilized, modern societies".

You can argue all day long that torture is wrong and i'd hope noone would disagree with you. It is a horrible, abhorent act and in an ideal world would never ever be used. But the fact is we don't live in an ideal world and there are times when actions need to be taken even if they are distateful or something that society at large finds to be abhorent.

You've said you'd do the "right thing" when dealing with Telford but have been unable to actually define what that is beyond stating you'd have used legitimate interrogation techniques, which imo sounds like a very vague statement. However if we pursue this route of action you've ruled out anything that could cause physical or mental pain/suffering so are left with a limited number of options to try and get information out of someone. How long would you be happy to keep Telford in Rush's body while you try and break him? Remembering that he will very likely have been trained in methods to resist interrogation. At what point do you consider the danger Rush is in while you're trying to get Telford to hand over the info you need? What if you can't find a way to get Telford to hand over the location of hte LA base?

[garhkal]

Finally, all of these hypothetical situations involve some sense of "knowing" that the person in question has the information. But is this necessary? Can we torture someone if we simply suspect that they have the information we need? And how long can it go if we aren't given the information we're so convinced that they possess?

Very true. What if you torture someone till they are dead and it is proven later they DID NOT know anything. Are you now guilty of murder? What if it was their family members?
And for those who are willing to do it. Would you torture your wife, husband, son (etc) if you suspected one of those knew of the location for said 'ticking time bomb"??
Would you go Further, than if it was someone you were not related too? Would you recuse yourself (like judges do)?


ts a threat. Threat and torture are different.

As has been shown (by that nice posting of the UN rules), threats of death ARE torture.


I am of the school of thought that "the greater good" is generally what you want to go with, even if it means doing something distasteful.

So if you become evil (by doing evil), how is that serving the greater good?




So, for those people who are firmly against the idea of Young having tortured Telford, how would you have dealt with him?



Tried to use those blue alien devices (which DO seem to allow them to read minds, assuming rush and chloe came back with theirs) to read his mind. Before rush/telford left the base lock him down and get that tok'ra Zartac detector out.
Use the Tok'ra's mind reading device...


I would also like them to explain how the lives that would be saved from the intell that is likely to be gained doesn’t more than offset the moral harm done to Telford from his limited “torture” in this instance?

2 Issues...
A) this is assuming he even knows where their base of ops is.
B) it is also asuming they can get there and inside the base BEFORE the LA launch their attack.


To suggest that the moral fabric of our society will unravel from this one carefully administered and controlled, isolated and authorized instance is a shortsighted overreaction. Telford's necessary abuse for the greater good in this exceptional instance is justified and warranted imo.

It's called the slippery slope for a reason. For when you allow one "instance" it makes it easier for allowing the next, and next.. AND also lowers the bar for what IS another instance.


Most of these same moral individuals would have absolutely no problem doing whatever it took to force him to reveal the bus's location. I realize that these types of situations would be very rare and I am not trying to fault their convictions (I usually share them) but I am trying to point out that having someone personally to lose would likely change one’s absolute moral position.

Ar you so sure of that? DO you honestly think that some children out there would STILL want to live with the person you had to become? One of the kids i work with now has not talked to his dad for almost 17 years cause his dad had to do a similar thing to the above (though it supposedly was for a single 9 yr old girl kidnapped and raped)..

That his dad, a COP, could sink to being as bad as the murders and rapists he catches to "Save her" was in his mind WORSE than the criminals doing it as his dad SWORE an oath to uphold the law.


And how are you going to rescue Rush when you have absolutely no idea where the cargo ship the LA kidnapped him with has gone?

Disconnect the damn stones...


It's all very nice having these sorts of ideals but they just don't fit with the real world. It's great talking about how torture is something that our civilizations have ruled as barbarous and that torturing anyone is a betrayal of everything society stands for and the millions of people who've died to defend ideas but it completely ignores the fact, as pointed out by s09119, that torture is used around the world by a significant number of countries, including those who would like to consider themselves "civilized, modern societies".

Then if it is that easily justified to toss morals out the window, can we really say we are worthy of being 'saved'? if we can give up our cherished ideals, just because are they even that ideal?

[Krazeh]

Disconnect the damn stones...

And leave Telford to be tortured and killed at the hands of the LA? Seems it's easy for a number of people to get over their moral indignation about torture as soon as it's being done by someone else.


Then if it is that easily justified to toss morals out the window, can we really say we are worthy of being 'saved'? if we can give up our cherished ideals, just because are they even that ideal?

Did I say it was easily justified? Just because it's done doesn't mean that it's routine or ideals are thrown out of the window on a whim. We live in a society where societal ideals can be, and are, put to one side when there are situations which force that to be the case. For example, society at large says that killing someone is wrong, but that ideal is put to one side by Police Forces where innocent people are in danger and taking a person's life is the only way to save those innocents. They don't however just toss their morals out of the window without due consideration and it doesn't put us on a slippery slope to killing/murder becoming acceptable.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

I read it just fine. Torture by the KGB in the Soviet Union was effective--at getting whatever they wanted to hear out of the victim. Hence all the 'confessions' to crimes against the state.

And they were also good at extracting information from Western spies and anti communist groups in the Soviet Union. And do I have to bring up my example of MI5 in World War 2, with their highly successful use of death threats as coercion. They rolled up a whole network of German agents under the pressure of torture followed by execution.


Society is founded upon the idea that our collective ideals are more important than the individual. That's why we have constitutions and bills of rights, to enshrine these ideals as being most paramount part of our society. We, as a civilization, defined torture as a barbarous war crime centuries ago.

To torture anyone is a complete betrayal of everything that our society stands for. Men and women have died by the millions to defend ideals--and you're okay with just tossing them out the window because it's inconvenient to be principled?

I find that nothing short of appalling.
OK so you don’t like torture, we get that. Honestly I’m not a big fan of it myself, but I can admit that I wouldn’t be above it in certain circumstances. Further there are plenty of people in the military who would not have a problem torturing a suspect in certain situations, especially officers who feel that prisoners may have information vital to the safety of the people under their command. You can huff and puff and say how appalling it is, but it fits the characters of Young and O’Neill perfectly. Especially O’Neill who made a career before the SGC of illegal black ops.


The attack wasn't thwarted, it never happened. It is interesting that the man he tortured was detained for 45 days and was never charged. An investigation suggested that the man had no involvement with the terrotists and that the information he gave Allen was fabricated out of fear of his life. The quote I am referencing follows:



West claimed that the tactic worked. "Mr. Hamoodi came forth with names, location, and method of attack." The attack was to occur near the Saba al Boor police station with rooftop snipers from Fallujah, after Hamoodi signaled to them what Humvee contained West.

Soldiers set up surveillance in hopes of catching those involved in the ambush, which was supposedly scheduled for the next day. But the attack didn't occur. A search of Hamoodi's home reportedly turned up no evidence of the plot.

Hamoodi, who was interviewed by the New York Times nine months after the interrogation, said that he was never involved in any assassination plot and that the information he gave was induced by fear of death.

Hamoodi was detained for 45 days, then released without having been charged. West told the Times, "It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."

This type of occurrence with information gained from torture is typical and imo goes a long way to show how just how unreliable a form of interrogation torture is.
On the other hand MI5 as I mentioned before, was very good at turning German spies with a tactic of work for us or we torture and shoot you. Britain ran one of the most successful counter espionage operations in the Second World War, but it did so using very nasty means, executing numerous spies and having pleasant little facilities like “The Cage.”

The example with Allan West, even though it is controversial, still shows that officers under pressure, in combat situations or in danger of imminent attack will resort to torture. The biggest fear for an officer in the military is letting him men down, getting them killed. This is drummed into officers, it’s a key part of their training, and in these situations officers will act as they see fit. There are countless rules and regulations, including of course the fact that the military is outright banned from using torture, that doesn’t stop it from happening. Neither will you be able to remove this view from the military, in combat situations you do what you have to do to survive, and as Allan West shows if that means threaten and kicking the crap out of prisoners if you suspect they have vital info, then they will.

[Takamuri]

The SGC is the most secret base in the world, and it may have been infiltrated by hostile aliens. You better bet that they would resort to torture to get information.

[Blackhole]

The example with Allan West, even though it is controversial, still shows that officers under pressure, in combat situations or in danger of imminent attack will resort to torture. The biggest fear for an officer in the military is letting him men down, getting them killed. This is drummed into officers, it’s a key part of their training, and in these situations officers will act as they see fit. There are countless rules and regulations, including of course the fact that the military is outright banned from using torture, that doesn’t stop it from happening. Neither will you be able to remove this view from the military, in combat situations you do what you have to do to survive, and as Allan West shows if that means threaten and kicking the crap out of prisoners if you suspect they have vital info, then they will.

I agree there will always be officers in the military that will think that torture is acceptable form of interrogation and as long as it is sanctioned by high level officials then it will continue on in secret. West's punishment was a slap on the wrist. It is very distressing that the military chose not to punish him considering the unlucky individual he tortured was probably innocent.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

I agree there will always be officers in the military that will think that torture is acceptable form of interrogation and as long as it is sanctioned by high level officials then it will continue on in secret. West's punishment was a slap on the wrist. It is very distressing that the military chose not to punish him considering the unlucky individual he tortured was probably innocent.

No you miss my point, West’s torture of a suspect was not authorised by any higher official. Military men and women deal in violence, they kill people for a living, and in the heat of the movement many will have no problem about kicking the crap out of prisoners for information. This attitude isn’t going to go away, and no matter how many rules and regulations you put in place, it won’t work, soldiers will still give prisoners a shoeing if they feel the need to, and if it comes out that this has been going on then more than likely the military will close ranks and cover it up. As far they are concerned if you aren’t in a combat situation you can’t understand, and the military will go a long way to protecting its men and women, especially if they feel they are being scapegoat by people who weren’t on the ground and have no idea about how what it’s like on the ground.

Speaking as a part time member of the military, I would have no trouble in kicking the crap out of someone if I thought I could get vital information out them, if that information was needed fast and peoples lives were on the line, and it’s a particularly common view (I'd like to point out that if however, It is not the official or common policy or practice of the British Army, or any other Western Army to abuse prisoners, but if a do or die situation arose, you do what you have to do). When you train people in combat and violence you can’t expect them to be the most empathetic people on the planet when it comes to peoples welfare, especially when they've been trying to kill you and may be withholding information that may get you killed.

[Blackhole]

No you miss my point, West’s torture of a suspect was not authorised by any higher official. Military men and women deal in violence, they kill people for a living, and in the heat of the movement many will have no problem about kicking the crap out of prisoners for information. This attitude isn’t going to go away, and no matter how many rules and regulations you put in place, it won’t work, soldiers will still give prisoners a shoeing if they feel the need to, and if it comes out that this has been going on then more than likely the military will close ranks and cover it up. As far they are concerned if you aren’t in a combat situation you can’t understand, and the military will go a long way to protecting its men and women, especially if they feel they are being scapegoat by people who weren’t on the ground and have no idea about how what it’s like on the ground.

Speaking as a part time member of the military, I would have no trouble in kicking the crap out of someone if I thought I could get vital information out them, if that information was needed fast and peoples lives were on the line, and it’s a particularly common view (I'd like to point out that if however, It is not the official or common policy or practice of the British Army, or any other Western Army to abuse prisoners, but if a do or die situation arose, you do what you have to do). When you train people in combat and violence you can’t expect them to be the most empathetic people on the planet when it comes to peoples welfare, especially when they've been trying to kill you and may be withholding information that may get you killed.

The lightness of West's sentence shows the military command doesn't consider enforcing the rules on torture to be a priority. This is tacit approval in my mind. I was also referencing the fact that none of the high level Bush officials received any meaningful sanction. And the fact that the current administration hasn't made any meaningful changes speaks volumes as well. Government and military officials will give it lip service when an incident becomes public but aren't really interested in enforcing the laws.

I understand your point that combat situations are harsh, I can only say if you or any of your love ones or friends are ever captured I hope they are lucky enough to have empathetic and honorable jailers.

[s09119]

The lightness of West's sentence shows the military command doesn't consider enforcing the rules on torture to be a priority. This is tacit approval in my mind. I was also referencing the fact that none of the high level Bush officials received any meaningful sanction. And the fact that the current administration hasn't made any meaningful changes speaks volumes as well. Government and military officials will give it lip service when an incident becomes public but aren't really interested in enforcing the laws.

I understand your point that combat situations are harsh, I can only say if you or any of your love ones or friends are ever captured I hope they are lucky enough to have empathetic and honorable jailers.

Laws are often the first things sacrificed for continued freedom in times of hardship. Kind of ironic, isn't it? In order to produce the best possible defense, we compromise the very things we're defending. A necessary evil, I suppose.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

The lightness of West's sentence shows the military command doesn't consider enforcing the rules on torture to be a priority. This is tacit approval in my mind. I was also referencing the fact that none of the high level Bush officials received any meaningful sanction. And the fact that the current administration hasn't made any meaningful changes speaks volumes as well. Government and military officials will give it lip service when an incident becomes public but aren't really interested in enforcing the laws.

I understand your point that combat situations are harsh, I can only say if you or any of your love ones or friends are ever captured I hope they are lucky enough to have empathetic and honorable jailers.

Considering my friends serving overseas are fighting the Taliban the chances of them getting good treatment if they were captured is slim to none. They are at the very least if ever captured guaranteed far worse treatment than any Taliban captured. And honestly you get captured you hope for the best, but it is very difficult to have any sympathy or respect for someone who has just tried to kill you.

And the case of Colonel West does show that the military has little interest in strictly conforming to rules on torture, and honestly that really isn’t going to change any time soon. Widespread war crimes are condemned, no one goes round executing prisoners, nor are the vast majority of prisoners abused. But nobody sheds a tear if someone gets a kicking to extract vital information. The military cares more that its officers remain committed to the wellbeing of their own men, the motivation behind West’s actions in the first place, than them be concerned about the well being of the enemy. As long as you have men and women on the ground fighting then you will have incidences of torture, because people naturally care for their own and their comrades survival above the enemies well being.

[Shai Hulud]

Survival is nothing without morality.

Morality is a social construction, varies from culture to culture. In a multicultural society the question of 'morality' is ambiguous at best.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

You know I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Going back to Digifluids OP

The big big thing in this episode that I really, really was unhappy about. First Young is happy to throw out due process, suggesting he'll get an answer out of Telford by any means necessary--and O'Neill appears to be okay with it despite Daniel's objection. And then we've got Kiva prattling on about how she's learned over the years that torture is effective, who is proven right by Rush giving in :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about sending the wrong message http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_icons/uncertain.gif

his complaints can be essentially broken down into two issues. Firstly that Young and O’Neill decided to torture Rush, and secondly that SGU presented torture as being effective.

Well with regards to Young and O’Neill, what’s the big deal? Neither are supposed to be upstanding, perfectly virtuous members of humanity, and both have dark backgrounds. Aside from that there is a whole argument about whether O’Neill actually authorised torture, before he left he merely gave assent for the interrogation to be taken to the next level, but for the sake of argument say he did authorise torture. It may make both Young and O’Neill morally abhorrent in Digifluids eyes, but that’s who the characters are and there's no obligation for these characters to fit your moral standards. Further the torture was not presented as the right or correct course of action; it was simply presented as happening with some in support of it as a necessary evil and some very much against it. Hey what do you know, just like in real life people have differing views on torture.

The second issue, that of Lucian Alliance torture being effective, well horribly enough torture can be good at extracting information out of people. It can be especially good at extracting information the interrogator wants to hear however, a major argument against its use in the War on Terror, since what the interrogator wants to hear and what may be actually happening can be vastly different things, but in this case what Kiva wants to here is specifically the information that Rush has, she wanted to know whether he was off the Destiny and she wanted to know how to dial the 9th chevron. Unfortunately that’s two pieces of information that Rush actually has.

Rush’s torture was shown to be deeply degrading and painful. Torture was not presented in an episode as a good thing in any way, and I think part of the ep was to show that the SGC and the LA are not so different as they would like to believe. In any event the ep was hardly a thunderous endorsement of torture; it was shown to be a deeply unpleasant and controversial thing. However I’m glad that SGU approached the issue in a complex way rather than simply giving us the “torture is bad Mmmkay” routine.

[MattSilver 3k]

You know what my problem with this episode's use of torture?

There wasn't enough of it.

(BAM! New argument. :P)

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

You know what my problem with this episode's use of torture?

There wasn't enough of it.

(BAM! New argument. :P)

Indeed by previous stargate standards the torture was poor. Nobody had the life sucked out of them, or their appendages cut off them, or knives thrown at them or bombs implanted in their stomachs. I was most disappointed . :D

[MattSilver 3k]

Indeed by previous stargate standards the torture was poor. Nobody had the life sucked out of them, or their appendages cut off them, or knives thrown at them or bombs implanted in their stomachs. I was most disappointed . :D

By Stargate standards? Pfft - I've been watching 24, and SGU should be following their lead dammit! A few brass knuckles to the face, mild scalding with boiling water, removal of chest hair with superheated tweezers, salt water all over the burns and scrapes, followed by the removal of the tortuee's ear.

I'd expect nothing less. :D

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

By Stargate standards? Pfft - I've been watching 24, and SGU should be following their lead dammit! A few brass knuckles to the face, mild scalding with boiling water, removal of chest hair with superheated tweezers, salt water all over the burns and scrapes, followed by the removal of the tortuee's ear.

I'd expect nothing less. :D

Bah that’s nothing compared to Spooks, the British equivalent of 24. In one episode someone is tortured by having their head shoved in a deep fat fryer. Sizzly.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Indeed by previous stargate standards the torture was poor. Nobody had the life sucked out of them, or their appendages cut off them, or knives thrown at them or bombs implanted in their stomachs. I was most disappointed . :D

That raises a point in itself, doesn't it? If anything, these scenes haven't gone anywhere near that far, and there is the "other side" with Scott and Wray.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

That raises a point in itself, doesn't it? If anything, these scenes haven't gone anywhere near that far, and there is the "other side" with Scott and Wray.

Ah its people with selective memory, forgetting O’Neill did things like threaten to kill Kinsey on multiple occasions to get him to cooperate, tortured Klorel by zatting him and threatened to kill him, threatened to kill an unarmed priest, was complicit with the rest of the SGC in essentially torturing Teal’c in Threshold, Teal’c torturing various people such as his stint with the bomb in symbiotes pouches, Weir authorising the use of torture on both Kavanaugh and Caldwell and of course the big daddy, Sheppard torturing a wraith prisoner to death. Happy days. :P

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Ah its people with selective memory, forgetting O’Neill did things like threaten to kill Kinsey on multiple occasions to get him to cooperate, tortured Klorel by zatting him and threatened to kill him, threatened to kill an unarmed priest, was complicit with the rest of the SGC in essentially torturing Teal’c in Threshold, Teal’c torturing various people such as his stint with the bomb in symbiotes pouches, Weir authorising the use of torture on both Kavanaugh and Caldwell and of course the big daddy, Sheppard torturing a wraith prisoner to death. Happy days. :P

Distance seems to have fuzzed over a lot of these details, I agree. I haven't looked into the SG/SGA threads but I wonder if there are torture threads there that dealt with those issues? Has anyone levelled any of the charges against O'Neill/Sheppard/Weir that have been expressed against Young? Just curious :)

[jelgate]

Distance seems to have fuzzed over a lot of these details, I agree. I haven't looked into the SG/SGA threads but I wonder if there are torture threads there that dealt with those issues? Has anyone levelled any of the charges against O'Neill/Sheppard/Weir that have been expressed against Young? Just curious :)

I remember we had a huge debate calling Sheppherd a murderer in Miller's Crossing. You have to remember that the forum wasn't created until 2004 and it wasn't that active back then either

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I remember we had a huge debate calling Sheppherd a murderer in Miller's Crossing. You have to remember that the forum wasn't created until 2004 and it wasn't that active back then either

ah, I do love a huge debate :) Just one of those things I wonder - if it's spread evenly

[Astrofighter]

Now that is outlandish....he told the guy the situation and how Jeannie was going to die if the wraith died, he had lost his daughter and was going to go jail for the rest of his life, murder is quite a stretch.

I think people are much more critical of SGU because...well a lot of these people don't like the show. They want to be angry at it for something and the first chance they get it blindsides them to the real truth of what they are talking about and go on rants.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

I think people are much more critical of SGU because...well a lot of these people don't like the show. They want to be angry at it for something and the first chance they get it blindsides them to the real truth of what they are talking about and go on rants.

Not really, no. The OP is a big fan of the show, as are a number of other people I've seen on the thread who have argued the immorailty of the actions commited in the ep who are fans of the show. Generally haters of SGU don't stick arounf for complex 12+ pages of disscuison about the in depth moral questions of SGU.

[jelgate]

Not really, no. The OP is a big fan of the show, as are a number of other people I've seen on the thread who have argued the immorailty of the actions commited in the ep who are fans of the show. Generally haters of SGU don't stick arounf for complex 12+ pages of disscuison about the in depth moral questions of SGU.

"Politics, religion, and ethics. No matter what you say someone is offended."

Its just what is moral and what isn't a very controversial topic that many have an opinion on. I really don't think any of the people who disagree with my side are SGU haters its just like we all have our viewpoints of where the "line" is. Although I still say I'm right:P

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

ah, I do love a huge debate :) Just one of those things I wonder - if it's spread evenly

Well obviously as Jel points out the forum wasn’t as busy back in early 05 when the Siege Part 1 aired. I just popped over to the Siege Part 1 thread, and browsing it quickly did note there was some small discussion about Sheppard’s actions. However it was quickly glossed over by the posters of the time who argued the whole Geneva convention does not apply to aliens thing (Although the Geneva convention makes no definition about humans, it simply applies to “persons” which the Wraith as a sentient being qualifies as).

In fairness there was less discussion because there were far less people on Gateworld, for an ep that aired 5 years ago there is a 14 page thread. For an ep that aired 3 days ago there’s an 11 page thread plus numerous threads about the minutiae of the episode. But I certainly feel that previous stargate has been far more condoning of torture than this episode where it was clearly shown as a controversial act.

[EllieVee]

Now that is outlandish....he told the guy the situation and how Jeannie was going to die if the wraith died, he had lost his daughter and was going to go jail for the rest of his life, murder is quite a stretch.

I think people are much more critical of SGU because...well a lot of these people don't like the show. They want to be angry at it for something and the first chance they get it blindsides them to the real truth of what they are talking about and go on rants.

Um, what?

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

"Politics, religion, and ethics. No matter what you say someone is offended."

Its just what is moral and what isn't a very controversial topic that many have an opinion on. I really don't think any of the people who disagree with my side are SGU haters its just like we all have our viewpoints of where the "line" is. Although I still say I'm right:P

Just out of interest what is your side again? :D

This issue is complex enough that it has sparked multiple positions, but as you say I don’t think there’s any hate, just people reacting to good scifi that posed moral questions and quandaries.

[jelgate]

Just out of interest what is your side again? :D

This issue is complex enough that it has sparked multiple positions, but as you say I don’t think there’s any hate, just people reacting to good scifi that posed moral questions and quandaries.
More or less what you have said. Torture is a terrible and cruel thing that should not be used under normal circumstances. However like many things in life thier are exceptions. And in this case its very a rare exception. I more or less supported the action because human lives were directly in the balance. And when inncoent lives are at risk I think a lot of morals are suspended if it can save a life

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Just out of interest what is your side again? :D

This issue is complex enough that it has sparked multiple positions, but as you say I don’t think there’s any hate, just people reacting to good scifi that posed moral questions and quandaries.

It's that reaction that I love. So many things here have sparked really big discussions and sci-fi always seems to be right there at the forefront, pushing it every step of the way :) I wouldn't say hate either; hate's easy :D

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

More or less what you have said. Torture is a terrible and cruel thing that should not be used under normal circumstances. However like many things in life thier are exceptions. And in this case its very a rare exception. I more or less supported the action because human lives were directly in the balance. And when inncoent lives are at risk I think a lot of morals are suspended if it can save a life

Yay for parity! :D

Just out of intrest do we have anyone on the thread who thinks that torture is a good tool to be used on a regular basis? Anyone at all?

[Coronach]

Yay for parity! :D

Just out of intrest do we have anyone on the thread who thinks that torture is a good tool to be used on a regular basis? Anyone at all?

By "regular basis", are you implying like...for use in normal, everyday interrogations in non-dire circumstances? If so, I doubt you're gonna find someone who feels this way. At the very least, if they do feel this way then they're going to have a very hard time defending such an argument.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

By "regular basis", are you implying like...for use in normal, everyday interrogations in non-dire circumstances? If so, I doubt you're gonna find someone who feels this way. At the very least, if they do feel this way then they're going to have a very hard time defending such an argument.

I know but it was worth asking to see if if there were any nutters on the board. :D

[Lahela]

I know but it was worth asking to see if if there were any nutters on the board. :D

I thought we'd already established that we're all nutters? :p

[Coronach]

I thought we'd already established that we're all nutters? :p

I dunno about that, but I sure do like Nutter Butters! :D

[Lahela]

I dunno about that, but I sure do like Nutter Butters! :D

I don't know what a Nutter Butter is, but I already prefer the idea of it to the idea of poutine!

Hmmm... topic... how about torture with food? The world's weirdest national dishes? Anyone for snails?

[Coronach]

I don't know what a Nutter Butter is, but I already prefer the idea of it to the idea of poutine!

Hmmm... topic... how about torture with food? The world's weirdest national dishes? Anyone for snails?

They're amazing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutter_Butter)...but I really like peanut butter so that might be why I love them.

Torture food for me would be black olives. I think they're terrible. :S

[jelgate]

I thought we'd already established that we're all nutters? :p

Not me. I'm perfectly sane

[garhkal]

And leave Telford to be tortured and killed at the hands of the LA? Seems it's easy for a number of people to get over their moral indignation about torture as soon as it's being done by someone else.

And how do we know they WILL torture/kill him?



Did I say it was easily justified? Just because it's done doesn't mean that it's routine or ideals are thrown out of the window on a whim. We live in a society where societal ideals can be, and are, put to one side when there are situations which force that to be the case. For example, society at large says that killing someone is wrong, but that ideal is put to one side by Police Forces where innocent people are in danger and taking a person's life is the only way to save those innocents. They don't however just toss their morals out of the window without due consideration and it doesn't put us on a slippery slope to killing/murder becoming acceptable.


You can huff and puff and say how appalling it is, but it fits the characters of Young and O’Neill perfectly. Especially O’Neill who made a career before the SGC of illegal black ops.

And to me, that is wrong for them, as it flys in the face of the miltiary's core values.. If they are that willing to 'do the appaling thing' how did they make it so far?


aws are often the first things sacrificed for continued freedom in times of hardship. Kind of ironic, isn't it? In order to produce the best possible defense, we compromise the very things we're defending. A necessary evil, I suppose.

Wasn't it Jefferson who said "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"??