Torture

[Demerzel]

Demerzel,



But it is an extreme measure to apply. If it is not guranteed to produce the needed results why use it? Sometimes if you just ask someone they will tell you without resorting to torture or incarceration. I'm not saying we should never arrest hold and interrogate people based upon that fact.

When talking about torture "sometimes it works" is not nearly enough to justify its use. I'm saying without a guarantee of success and the with the risk of harming innocents the ends do not justify the means.



I'm not sure I'd say Telford, prior to the last scene which is pretty clearly torture, has been tortured. Telford attacked Young then Greer jumped in pulled Telford off Young and started wailing on Telford. Young immedieately pulled Greer off Telford. It can be argued Telford's injuries, prior to the atmosphere venting, were caused by his attack on Young.

So what you're saying is that if we're not sure something will succeed, we shouldn't even try? All those here that are so in favor of doing nothing when terrorists are threatening lives, I'd be curious to see what you'd do or say, when faced with a man you know is holding your entire family and children hostages. I'm sure you'd smile and ask him politely to say where your family is. When he spits in your face and says he's glad those people are going to die, I'm sure you'd also smile and just accept his refusal to talk.

We wouldn't want to be mean to the poor terrorist who has no respect for the country or the lives he's about to take. Let's respect him. He's maybe hungry! Why not cook him lunch?

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.

this is the ticking time bomb scenario and, outside of TVland, it doesn't work at getting information because you have to be sure, SURE, that you have the right person, the right information, in a timely manner, and that the person won't simply lie. It works marvelously in TV but in real life? Not so much.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Demerzel,

So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.

1. How do you know you've got the right guy?

2. How do you know it's possible to disarm the explosive he's created?

3. How do you know, since he's already willing to murder, he will not just lie under torture (to make it look credible in your eyes) and tell them the wrong way to disarm the bomb? Or give them a location close to the bomb but not right on the bomb so they will be killed when it detonates.

4. If you are saying you do it because there's nothing else you can do that is a horrible justification that could be used to rationalize anything no matter how twisted or wrong. Perhaps you should torture his child in front of him to get the information, would that be justified in your eyes if it saved lives knowing the child has nothing to do with what their father did?

So what you're saying is that if we're not sure something will succeed, we shouldn't even try?

Absolutely no one has said "do nothing". What we are saying is that torture of that individual, unless you have a 100% guaranteed chance of success with it cannot be justified because it can never give you a 100% gurantee of success and will involve the harming of innocents.

[Deevil]

So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

I don't believe in torture - period. Becoming a monster in order to stop a monster is counter-productive.

Furthermore, if you know where he has planted the bomb, why on Earth do you need to torture him. And why would anyone assume a terrorist would share the information under duress? The problem with torture is that it assumes a lot of things, the most important being that you don't know whether or not their telling the truth.

'Cause you gotta remember, Special Service soldiers are trained to withstand torture. Why do people assume terrorists aren't?

[Demerzel]

this is the ticking time bomb scenario and, outside of TVland, it doesn't work at getting information because you have to be sure, SURE, that you have the right person, the right information, in a timely manner, and that the person won't simply lie. It works marvelously in TV but in real life? Not so much.

I adore the fact that people here pretend to know everything that does or does not happen in the world. All of Delta Force's activities are classified, even their numbers. All of the CIA's SAD activities are classified or above. You seem to be under the impression that us, the public, learn about every "ticking bomb" scenarios and how it ends.

Repeat after me.

I. Don't. Know.

[Deevil]

Repeat after me.

I. Don't. Know.

So then, why are you arguing that it works? If one cannot argue it doesn't work, you and other cannot argue that it's productive.

Repeat after me

I. Don't. Know. Either.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I adore the fact that people here pretend to know everything that does or does not happen in the world. All of Delta Force's activities are classified, even their numbers. All of the CIA's SAD activities are classified or above. You seem to be under the impression that us, the public, learn about every "ticking bomb" scenarios and how it ends.

Repeat after me.

I. Don't. Know.

if everything that was supposed to stay secret actually stayed a secret, you might have a point, and further, don't assume that you know what other people you interact with online know or don't know

[Demerzel]

So then, why are you arguing that it works? If one cannot argue it doesn't work, you and other cannot argue that it's productive.

Repeat after me

I. Don't. Know. Either.

I never argued that it works every time. I'm willing to concede that it sometimes doesn't work, perhaps even most of the times. But I also believe that torture sometimes has its place and is necessary. You are of the absolute opinion that it never has, and never will work. Close-minded people are usually those that are the most willing to sacrifice lives because they aren't willing to budge from their position. You strike me as being that type. I may be wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Demerzel,

I adore the fact that people here pretend to know everything that does or does not happen in the world. All of Delta Force's activities are classified, even their numbers. All of the CIA's SAD activities are classified or above. You seem to be under the impression that us, the public, learn about every "ticking bomb" scenarios and how it ends.

Repeat after me.

I. Don't. Know.

Non-Sequitur for the win!!!!

Who here has said they know Special Forces operations in any detail? Our points, which you are now not addressing, are rational and cogent. If you can't address them simply say you can't and bow out gracefully. The prior use of torture in no way justifies its future use.

To be clear, I'm not saying torture can't work. I'm saying that the fact it has worked in the past does not, for the reasons I've stated ad nausum in this thread, justify its future use.

Care to answer my question about torturing a terrorist's innocent child in order to get information you want? Is that justified or justifiable in your opinion?

[Demerzel]

if everything that was supposed to stay secret actually stayed a secret, you might have a point, and further, don't assume that you know what other people you interact with online know or don't know

Pretty safe bet to say that nobody browsing these forums and posting know the intimate details of SAD operations or what Delta operators do on a daily basis in their constant fight to protect people (they protect people who protect terrorists, how ironic is that) from terrorism. The CIA has done things behind the Congress' back in the past, so I doubt it would come to our ears.

[Deevil]

I never argued that it works every time. I'm willing to concede that it sometimes doesn't work, perhaps even most of the times. But I also believe that torture sometimes has its place and is necessary. You are of the absolute opinion that it never has, and never will work. Close-minded people are usually those that are the most willing to sacrifice lives because they aren't willing to budge from their position. You strike me as being that type. I may be wrong.

I never said it never has worked. Please refer me to any posts I have made to that end.

Furthermore, I thank you not to make personal assertions to as to who I am. You do not know and you couldn't possibly derive anything from a few posts here. If you cannot continue a conversation without such statements, there is no point in conversing at all.

[Demerzel]

Demerzel,

Care to answer my question about torturing a terrorist's innocent child in order to get information you want? Is that justified or justifiable in your opinion?

Why this specific dilemma? We go from talking about torturing a terrorist, to torturing a child? I'm of the school of thinking that sacrificing one life to save many is the right thing to do. Nothing will ever change my mind on that.

[Ukko]

LMAO, no you don't. You assume they have the information you want, and if you are torturing an innocent person and they lie to you to get you to stop how does that save lives?

The simple answer is; it does not.

It doesnt. Risk of hurting some innocents wont stop me from doing something that could save lives in the future.

So essentially you are valuing 2 people's lives more then 1. Would you still believe that's acceptable if say, your mother (or someone else you loved) happened to be an innocent victim of torture. Would you still think it's acceptable then?

I would value 2 lives over 1.
Would i believe its acceptable? yes. Those 2 lives would be more important. Would i like it or do it myself if it was my mother? No. I would let those 2 people die if it was my mother and not have a second thought. One family member is worth more than any amount others to me and im not going to deny the hypochrasy in that. Thats just the way it is.

Except, people get a trial. You don't get a trial before torture.

If we legalised it, we could put a system in place where you do get a trial first. I dont have much faith in juries anyway.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Demerzel,

Why this specific dilemma? We go from talking about torturing a terrorist, to torturing a child? I'm of the school of thinking that sacrificing one life to save many is the right thing to do. Nothing will ever change my mind on that.

Because it's a natural progression. If this is all about the ends justifying the means then perhaps the Terrorist will resist torture of their person. Thus, the next step is to torture people they care about, people who are innocent of any wrong doing and just happen to have a ******* for a mother or father.

To be clear, are you saying torturing the child of the terrorist (the child who has nothing to do with their mother or father's activities) is justified?

[Deevil]

Would i like it or do it myself if it was my mother? No. I would let those 2 people die if it was my mother and not have a second thought. One family member is worth more than any amount others to me and im not going to deny the hypochrasy in that. Thats just the way it is.

I admire the fact that you admit to the hypocracy here. I tend to live by the belief that if I wouldn't want someone to do <insert action here> to me or mine, I cannot in good conscience do it to someone else.

I am not saying that there is a right or wrong answer here (at least academically), because when needs must we can all do something we don't believe in - even to those we love - but that's my stance.