When torture is right

[KEK]

For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Uh, he wasn't torturing him though, it was doing the Rite of Malshuraan thingy.

[s09119]

I'm going to Godwin this thread, but it needs to be said.

The Nuremburg trials showed that "just following orders" is no excuse. Millions of people were tortured, and the soliders under the command of the big shots who gave those orders, were just as culpable as the commanders.

Torture. Is. Wrong.

And if you carry out an order to torture someone, you are just as guilty.

As PG15 said, what Young did was more like a treatment, but he should have explained that to the people under his command. True, technically Scott should have... but as Sheppard told a different Col Everett in SGA, if he didn't include Weir in things, he'd lose the respect of everyone. There is more to leading then simply barking out orders.

I disagree, sorry. Even Weir ended up admitting that sometimes, morality needs to take a back seat to survival. And World War II was a completely different scenario and you know it.

Let me guess... You support that torture that our government has been doing down in Guantanamo Bay? Lets turn the tables around and pretend you were captured. Would you then still believe torture is acceptable? If so, you got some major issues brother =)

Thanks for calling me mentally unstable, by the way.

And no, I do not support the things done in Guantanamo. Torture is acceptable when there's no other options and when many innocent lives are at stake. I'm not saying it's a good, wonderful thing or that it should be used all the time, obviously. The point is that, in this case as in some others, it was the right thing to do.

Uh, he wasn't torturing him though, it was doing the Rite of Malshuraan thingy.

True, but his method of enacting the right could still be called torture... as it was two weeks ago when half the forum launched into an anti-Young crusade about it.

[blackluster]

For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

No, Incursion does nothing to justify torture in any way shape or form. The differences between torture and what Young was trying to do go well beyond semantics. You couldn't label it torture anymore than you could call a doctor administering a lumbar punch as committing an act of torture.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

No, Incursion does nothing to justify torture in any way shape or form. The differences between torture and what Young was trying to do go well beyond semantics. You couldn't label it torture anymore than you could call a doctor administering a lumbar punch as committing an act of torture.

exactly
I may say that my physiotherapist is torturing me but it's really not the same thing

[KEK]

True, but his method of enacting the right could still be called torture... as it was two weeks ago when half the forum launched into an anti-Young crusade about it.

Forced medical procedures can be painful, but I wouldn't call them torture. The forum erupted because we assumed he was torturing Telford for information, but as it turned out, he wasn't.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Forced medical procedures can be painful, but I wouldn't call them torture. The forum erupted because we assumed he was torturing Telford for information, but as it turned out, he wasn't.

some people, KEK, some people
I think some people were just set on believing the worst of the character and this fit. I have to wonder, if it was another character, would there have been the same reaction?

[Kaiphantom]

I disagree, sorry. Even Weir ended up admitting that sometimes, morality needs to take a back seat to survival. And World War II was a completely different scenario and you know it.

Rich Man: "You thief! Have you no morals?"
Thief: "Nope; can't afford 'em."

Yes, when it comes down the wire, people will throw their principles out the window. Bu the Nuremburg trials were important because they established - in a global way, no less! - that people are responsible for their own actions. That "I was just following orders" is no excuse to torture, maim, or commit other despicable acts.

As a general response, I've adjusted my thinking a bit. Young had two goals in mind when he ordered the air out:

#1. If Telford was brainwashed, it was a risky treatment to cure him.
#2. But if it wasn't, it was a very deliberate torture to get him to talk.

Young didn't know which, so he was killing two birds with one stone. If it was torture, he wanted to keep Scott and the others out of it; I still believe he should have given reason #1 as a possibility, though, to at least let them know he wasn't going to kill Telford/Rush.

To further explain my views on torture, I feel it should be illegal, and there should be heavy consequences. But you know what? If I'm in a position where torturing someone will help save lives, I'll do it... and accept the consequences. I will let history be my judge, and perhaps condemn me, but I will submit myself to a jury of my peers and accept their judgment. That is how I believe torture should be handled. Officially wrong and rarely used, but if someone believes it is justifiable in a situation, they should accept all consequences.

Despite what you may see on TV, torture is actually a very poor method of gaining intelligence. Most of the time, you don't know if what someone is telling you under torture is even correct, or if they really don't know everything. On Destiny, we have the benefit of being an objective third person in a clear case of right and wrong. Real life is considerably more gray, and you won't know for sure if someone has information you need.

So Young was carrying an idiot ball by not telling Scott, Greer, and Wray, at least. If he wants to continue in this command, then he needs to man up and respect other people; it's the only way you earn respect yourself.

[Major_Griff]

some people, KEK, some people
I think some people were just set on believing the worst of the character and this fit. I have to wonder, if it was another character, would there have been the same reaction?

I was vehemently opposed to the torture until I realized what he was doing this week, and I would have been opposed to it no matter who was doing it. I actually like Young. Along with TJ, Greer, and Rush, he is one of my favorite characters on the show. Though I'll admit there do seem to be certain posters who have it in for certain characters on the show.

[garhkal]

Rich Man: "You thief! Have you no morals?"
Thief: "Nope; can't afford 'em."

I have heard that before.. where from though i cannot remember.

[Phenom]

This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

If anything, this episode proved just how useless torture really is. Telford did not break under the duress, and even after he'd apparently come to his senses, he didn't give them enough information to stop the invasion.

So not only did Young commit a monstrous crime, it also produced no tangible results.

This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

Had Young made the tough call O'Neill suggested he should have and vented the gate room, the torture would have saved the ship. I suggest you probably are against torture no matter how good the results are.

[Giantevilhead]

Torture only works in television and movies where characters have plot armor and the infinitesimal chance of getting good intel out of torture is a guarantee. In real life, it's far more likely that Telford would have given them bad intel, leading Carter to chase a bad lead while ignoring good ones, or worse, putting Carter in danger for no appreciable gain.

I've made this analogy before and I'll do it again here. Torture is like gambling, it can work but the chances of that happening is extremely low. You can spend your retirement fund in Vegas and win $10 million but you're far more likely to end up broke and drown yourself in cocktail sauce at the $1.99 buffet. You can torture people all you want but you'll be lucky if just 1% of what they say can be used. And if you think that torture can work in real life just because it works for Jack Bauer then you must also think that you can get a Royal Flush every time you play poker because James Bond can do it.

[s09119]

Torture only works in television and movies where characters have plot armor and the infinitesimal chance of getting good intel out of torture is a guarantee. In real life, it's far more likely that Telford would have given them bad intel, leading Carter to chase a bad lead while ignoring good ones, or worse, putting Carter in danger for no appreciable gain.

I've made this analogy before and I'll do it again here. Torture is like gambling, it can work but the chances of that happening is extremely low. You can spend your retirement fund in Vegas and win $10 million but you're far more likely to end up broke and drown yourself in cocktail sauce at the $1.99 buffet. You can torture people all you want but you'll be lucky if just 1% of what they say can be used. And if you think that torture can work in real life just because it works for Jack Bauer then you must also think that you can get a Royal Flush every time you play poker because James Bond can do it.

You're severely under-representing the odds of torture providing helpful intelligence. The notion that it only gives something useful <1% of the time is a myth.

[Kaiphantom]

You're severely under-representing the odds of torture providing helpful intelligence. The notion that it only gives something useful <1% of the time is a myth.

Do you have facts to back that up? Evidence?

Because in the real world, you don't even know if the person you're torturing really has info. You grab a "terrorist" and ship him off to gitmo, then waterboard him away. He breaks down crying, saying he doesn't know, but how do you know if he's acting? You keep pushing him, and eventually he gives you information because it's the only way you'll stop. Of course, you find it's false information, so you think he's still hiding something, and continue to torture him.

This is the reality, because you just don't know if someone really has information you need, and you have no way of verifying it until you check it out thoroughly. And he could continue to give you bad info, making you wonder if he has any in the first place.

[Rudy Pena]

Do you have facts to back that up? Evidence?

Because in the real world, you don't even know if the person you're torturing really has info. You grab a "terrorist" and ship him off to gitmo, then waterboard him away. He breaks down crying, saying he doesn't know, but how do you know if he's acting? You keep pushing him, and eventually he gives you information because it's the only way you'll stop. Of course, you find it's false information, so you think he's still hiding something, and continue to torture him.

This is the reality, because you just don't know if someone really has information you need, and you have no way of verifying it until you check it out thoroughly. And he could continue to give you bad info, making you wonder if he has any in the first place.

You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

s09119,

For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Venting the air in Telford's compartment, in an effort to break potential brainwashing isn't torture. It's a specific, incredibly unpleasent, procedure done to counteract the LA's brainwashing of Telford. Consider surgery, having someone cut open your body. Outside of the context of attempting to heal an injury that would be torture. In the context of attempting to heal it is not. Therefore, what Young did, in this context, was not torture.