Torture

[s09119]

Which would be pretty much always in any real life situation - how can you ever be certain that the person has the information you need? Isn't that why you are torturing them in the first place?

Nothing in life is ever certain.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

carmencatalina,

Which would be pretty much always in any real life situation - how can you ever be certain that the person has the information you need? Isn't that why you are torturing them in the first place?

Hence my point. In order to be willing to torture, you have to be willing to torture an innocent. If we are talking about the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. It's going to look like a MacGruber sketch if you've got the wrong person. Torture is pointless unless you already know what the person you are torturing knows.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

carmencatalina,



Hence my point. In order to be willing to torture, you have to be willing to torture an innocent. If we are talking about the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. It's going to look like a MacGruber sketch if you've got the wrong person. Torture is pointless unless you already know what the person you are torturing knows.

That's one of the biggest reasons why the ticking time bomb scenario doesn't work (except in tvland where there is always this certainty that they have the right person at the right time with the right information). In the real world, you end up with a lot of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do some of them possibly know something? Sure, that's a possibility. It's also a possibility that they see the writing on the wall fairly quickly into the procedure and are pretty quick to give up anything, even if they have to make it up.

[s09119]

carmencatalina,



Hence my point. In order to be willing to torture, you have to be willing to torture an innocent. If we are talking about the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. It's going to look like a MacGruber sketch if you've got the wrong person. Torture is pointless unless you already know what the person you are torturing knows.

Yes, just like there are innocent people thrown in jail or put to death in every country in the world every day. It's a risk we have to take, but of course we try to minimize the chances that such a person would ever be subjected to that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

S09119,

How does the interrogator "miminize" the risk of torturing an innocent if they don't know what the person to be tortured knows before they torture them? That being the case what good is torture in "ticking time bomb" scenarios? If they do know what the person to be tortured knows why do they need confirmation before they go to stop the bomb? I'd think the bomb would be the bigger issue at that point.

[s09119]

S09119,

How does the interrogator "miminize" the risk of torturing an innocent if they don't know what the person to be tortured knows before they torture them? That being the case what good is torture in "ticking time bomb" scenarios? If they do know what the person to be tortured knows why do they need confirmation before they go to stop the bomb? I'd think the bomb would be the bigger issue at that point.

We need to have a good idea that the person in question has the information we need to know, of course, same as we'd like to be reasonably sure the person we're sending to jail or putting to death actually committed the crime we say they did. I don't see what you're arguing.

[carmencatalina]

We need to have a good idea that the person in question has the information we need to know, of course, same as we'd like to be reasonably sure the person we're sending to jail or putting to death actually committed the crime we say they did. I don't see what you're arguing.

In the case of a person being sent to jail or being put to death - they have had a trail, no? A jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

In all the hypotheticals spun here and elsewhere, never has it been suggested that the person being tortured has been tried in any way, has had representation under the law, has had due process.

These things seem very different to me.

[Blackhole]

We need to have a good idea that the person in question has the information we need to know, of course, same as we'd like to be reasonably sure the person we're sending to jail or putting to death actually committed the crime we say they did. I don't see what you're arguing.

I am not trying to pick on you personally but the really distressing problem with this whole torture discussion is exactly exemplified by the caviler attitude about torture you exhibit in your post. When someone is put in jail they have received a lengthy trial. They have had legal representation, were able to face their accuser, and had the burden of proof of guilt placed on the prosecutor. Fundamental to our democracy is the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. In cases of the death penalty add mandatory appeals; where their cases are automatically reviewed. Unfortunately, even after this lengthy process convicted individuals are often later found to be innocent and released.

You said that: “We need to have a good idea that the person in question has the information we need.” Who is we and what is a good idea? All it takes to be thrown in a deep dark hole is for someone to label them an Enemy Combatant. It is a very broad definition that can easily be applied to anyone the government chooses. With the laws passed since 911, they can then be imprisoned indefinitely without charge; denied all due process, and are free to be brutally tortured. Most of the enemy combatants picked up after 911, imprisoned and tortured, were innocent. I am going to repost what I wrote earlier.

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.

You asked me for evidence of our country’s movement in an authoritative direction. Here it is. The creation of Enemy Combatant status with their loss of habeas corpus is alarming evidence of our countries movement towards a police state. As I mentioned earlier, one of our most fundamental and important rights is habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. To categorically create a new classification of detainee that has no rights to any due process is the first step Nazi Germany and all other totalitarian regimes have taken. If you don’t think this is true then you need to learn your history.

[Sami_]

Sami,



Is torture okay when you are unsure whether the person you are torturing has the information you need?

Yes, again we're weighing temporary pain for a very short time against a persons life.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

Yes, again we're weighing temporary pain for a very short time against a persons life.

So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right?

How much torture should an innocent have to endure in order to confirm they really are innocent? What happens when the interrogators don't believe the innocent person's protestations of innocence and the innocent person starts lieing about what they know to get them to stop hurting them? Is the innocent person now guilty of lieing to federal officers and impeding an investigation because they couldn't handle "temporary pain" of repeated beatings, waterboardings, sleep deprivation, and worse?

Assuming the interrogators do believe the person is innocent are they just let go with an apology or does being beaten, waterboarded, and worse simply come with territory of living in a liberal republican democracy?

[Sami_]

So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right?

If the bolded part is the extent of your evidence then no I would not be happy just as I would if anyone was arrested/charged/convicted of a crime with the justification that "you think". As for the techniques you cited, yes I am fine with all of those if there is a real expectation that information gained can save lives.

False confessions can happen in any investigation and there are rules and procedures in place to identify them, I'm no expert in torture but I assume they work just as dillligently to weed out false confessions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

We're talking measures of degree at this point particularly when the issue is preventing a nuclear attack on a US city. Describe for us what evidence you believe would justify the "temporary discomfort" of torture?

You also didn't answer my question about an innocent who lies under torture to make it stop. Is that a crime or not? Should an innocent who is totured be able to sue for being tortured, or is that just the cost of keeping or nation "free"?

[Sami_]

Sami,

We're talking measures of degree at this point particularly when the issue is preventing a nuclear attack on a US city. Describe for us what evidence you believe would justify the "temporary discomfort" of torture?

I have no idea nor is it really relevant to my stance on the issue, if a skilled investigator who uses evidence to form their opinion (seems redundant to say but I'm sure someone would try and twist it if I didn't) believes that a person may have information regarding an attack of some sort and they think torture would reveal that information then its fine with me.

You also didn't answer my question about an innocent who lies under torture to make it stop. Is that a crime or not? Should an innocent who is totured be able to sue for being tortured, or is that just the cost of keeping or nation "free"?

No I don't consider it a crime to falsely confess under duress and no I don't think an innocent who is tortured should be able to sue.

[garhkal]

So how many innocent have to suffer torture or you to NOT think it is all right? 2? 8? 1000?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

I have no idea nor is it really relevant to my stance on the issue, if a skilled investigator who uses evidence to form their opinion (seems redundant to say but I'm sure someone would try and twist it if I didn't) believes that a person may have information regarding an attack of some sort and they think torture would reveal that information then its fine with me.

You are asserting that with "enough" evidence it's okay to torture an innocent and you don't think a standard of evidence is releveant to the conversation? You are also relying solely upon the "opinion" of a "skilled investigator". If I was a skilled investigator and fingered you as part of a plot to detonate a nuclear device in the U.S. you'd have no problem with being tortured despite the fact you know nothing about such a hypothetical plot?

No I don't consider it a crime to falsely confess under duress and no I don't think an innocent who is tortured should be able to sue.

So, the person taken in by the "skilled investigator" can lie their ass off to the interrogator to get the torture to stop but there are no consequeces to lieing to an interrogator?

As for not being able to sue after being torture despite being innocent please explain why there wouldn't be a cause of action against the State and the person torturing you? I'm terribly curious to hear why being tortured without good cause wouldn't give rise to damages if not criminal sactions against the person doing the torturing.