Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
Anyone who actually listens to the people who actually have experience in this area knows that torture only rarely works, and when it does work you don't usually know if it actually worked in a usable timeframe. And people who are terrified or in extreme pain will say anything they think will stop the torture, meaning you may get information that is wrong, or an outright lie, or a misleading half-truth they tell you just to stop the pain. So why torture someone if you're not going to get useful information?
Also, if you torture them, you break trust between them and you, which means that even if they give out information once, they're less likely to reveal other things that may also be useful. Things you don't even think to ask about. But if you instead work on developing a level of trust between them and you then whatever they do tell you is at least as likely to be reliable PLUS, in the long term, they may volunteer other information about a wider range of things that you didn't even know about.
In other words, torture is about the torturer feeling like they're in control. Feeling dominant. But it doesn't actually serve the goal of reliable, useful intelligence. If the only reason it's popular is to "feel" in control, then it not only generates bad intelligence, it puts the torturer into a careless mindset, thinking they can control someone that they, in truth, are not actually in control of. It distracts them from the greater goals of getting accurate information.
So, no, I don't think torture should be a regular part of intelligence gathering. There may be a few one-off cases where it might be useful but, again, how do we know it actually worked? Can we know that in a relevant timeframe? In many cases, no.
The problem with torture is that the information obtained is unreliable. The person being tortured, once broken, will say whatever they think will stop the torture. And since "I don't know" is never an acceptable answer, they often just make stuff up.
Also, there's the "known terrorist" part of your statement. Who knows they are a terrorist? There are countless stories of law enforcement agencies arresting the wrong and/or completely innocent people.
Would you agree that accidentally torturing a few innocent people is justified as long as you get valid information from the guilty people you are also torturing? What if you, or a close friend or relative, were one of the innocent people being tortured?
In the case of imminent danger, say an active kidnapping or ongoing bombing attack, where someone was caught red-handed with incriminating materials, then I'd say short-term torture is acceptable for the immediate life-saving results. But general torture in order to get information leading to the arrest of other people to torture? No way.
I could post about 100 videos of cartels torturing their victims, it's certainly not pretty and certainly not something I would wish on any human being. I don't have a shred of feelings towards ISIS and other terrorist groups, and I believe we should do what we can to eradicate these people, but when you say torture, well, that's just not who we are. Leave the torture to the animals out there, the folks from ISIS, the Los Zetas, Boko Haram, etc.
I don't want to stoop to their level.
Ever watched someone hanged upside down from an A-Frame ladder by their ankles (using handcuffs for extra pain), then beaten by aluminum baseball bats alive until their bones turn to liquid? Torture is not a pretty thing nor is it a word to be thrown around loosely.
Harsh questioning and fear of death, perhaps I'm okay with. But as mentioned above, most people will confess to anything if stressed into that situation.
I would rather spend money on prevention of the crime that interrogation of the criminal.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
I have a practical opposition to torture, not a philosophical one. I do think that we can imagine scenarios in which torture isn't just morally acceptable but is morally obligatory, such as a terrorist who has hidden a large bomb in a populated area and refuses to give up the location. However, in the real world, it is very, very difficult to know when we are in such a situation. In practice, I think torture should generally be illegal. There are simply too many unknowns, and there are legitimate questions over whether torture in practice has actually been effective. The Senate report on the CIA's torture program concluded that it wasn't particularly effective.
I think there should be some mechanism by which we can torture people in extremely limited circumstances when a very high standard has been met. Clearly, this sort of decision needs to go through an exhaustive process of approval. In general, however, I think the risks of a torture program far outweigh the benefits.
The problem with torture is that the information obtained is unreliable. The person being tortured, once broken, will say whatever they think will stop the torture. And since "I don't know" is never an acceptable answer, they often just make stuff up.
Also, there's the "known terrorist" part of your statement. Who knows they are a terrorist? There are countless stories of law enforcement agencies arresting the wrong and/or completely innocent people.
Would you agree that accidentally torturing a few innocent people is justified as long as you get valid information from the guilty people you are also torturing? What if you, or a close friend or relative, were one of the innocent people being tortured?
In the case of imminent danger, say an active kidnapping or ongoing bombing attack, where someone was caught red-handed with incriminating materials, then I'd say short-term torture is acceptable for the immediate life-saving results. But general torture in order to get information leading to the arrest of other people to torture? No way.
Yes, there ARE ways to verify information received. You don't torture, get info and let the person go or get rid of them; you hold them to verify the truth. What do people think, you torture someone, he speaks, you let him go and then verify the info? Come ON.
And most people, who were under torture and eventually let go are going to lie about how effective torture is on some people.
One reason to lie is the possible embarrassment of telling all when a person is not supposed too say a thing. And two, they feel for anyone else going through what they have been through.
But there are plenty of people who cannot speak up due to possible problems that will say that torture DID work. Not in all cases, and a lot depends on the torture used. But if done correctly, good information will be received in about 98 percent of the time; provided the person actually knows.
And there was a ton of excellent information obtained after 911, not so much by the USA due to the laws but by our Allies in certain countries from torture.
But those who are against torture will never change their minds, and those for torture under certain conditions will remain for torture. So a thread like this does nothing but allow both sides to post their beliefs. So, no more from me on this subject. Don't want Hillary at my front door screaming at me.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
Torture is sadistic and is only done to make the torturers feel good that they are accomplishing something by "being tough".
Hey, who cares that the information obtained is poor quality and usually can't be corroborated by other means. They squealed (anything they could think of) and the torturer got "something". Pretty low bar for success, but it sure LOOKS like a win.
I have a practical opposition to torture, not a philosophical one. I do think that we can imagine scenarios in which torture isn't just morally acceptable but is morally obligatory, such as a terrorist who has hidden a large bomb in a populated area and refuses to give up the location.
Ah, the much alluded to ticking time bomb scenario that from what I've read in the literature on torture is the scenario where torture is least likely to work. According to those who should know the argument is because the terrorist knows exactly when the bomb will detonate they know that they have a fixed time in which to endure any pain that a interrogator can dish out. It is also the scenario where the least credible information will be given since the whole object is to buy time.
So to answer the OP's question, without addressing the moral issue, I again deferring to those who are experts at conducting interrogations, asking "nice questions" works.
The last link is particularly illustrative because it describes the technique of the Nazi's most successful interrogator who never resorted to torture.
I'm tempted to say no to torture, because we're supposed to be "better than that."
But I have to admit that I'm certainly no expert on interrogation and which methods produce results and which are just punishment.
Leave it to the professionals who tend to know what works best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
torture or not?
