Waterboarding

[Prozac]

Waterboarding

Currently one of the used methods of interrogation to torture suspected terrorists/criminals for information.
It's used by the American Forces in countries were laws against those procurers aren't allowed.

Basically you should know all this, if you've been following the news recently

The purpose of this thread?
I want to know your opinion on this?
yay or nay.
and most importantly why


I'll refrain from my opinion till the discussion hopefully has started

 

[Brim]

Torture is wrong

I don't believe that torture produces the results that it is supposed to. Then again I'm not an interrogator so I'm not really an expert on the subject. However, I know that I would never want to be tortured, and while it may be something someone would wish upon their greatest enemy, it is not something I would. I think that rather than torturing we should look more into the area of telepathy to get secrets out of POWS...seriously...no really...ok maybe I'm joking...maybe...

But for real real, torture sucks ass, and waterboarding is torture

 

[Avenger]

I have to agree with Brim. No man with any good set of ethics could possibly say that torturing someone else is justifiable. Hate breeds nothing but hate. Even if we were to say that this is an efficient method of extracting information, how would we justify it? Obviously, we've reduced ourselves to nothing. Nothing our worst enemies has done could ever justify putting them through torture.

Now, since most intelligent individuals here have, or will eventually come to the conclusion that torture is not an efficient method of extracting information, how will we justify it then? With hate, anger and vengeance?

The only thing evils like torture serves as is the beginning of a downward spiral.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[Adaptus]

Wasn't there a thread about waterboarding a month or so ago?

Anyway - I think that torture is, in general, pretty bad practice. As you said, hate only breeds more hate - but in some cases, let's say with extremist muslims, the hate is already there. They'll hate Western nations regardless of the torture. And on extremists, the only way you might get information from them, is through torture.

So yeah, I don't like torture, I think that in most cases it's totally immoral, but I do think that in rare cases it might lead to the extraction of valuable information.

 

[Brim]

I don't really see it that way though. If it is an extreme enough case where torture is necessary, then I doubt the person being interrogated is going to be the type to give up information, and if they do, they are more than likely the type to lie. Just because someone already hates you doesn't give you the right to torture them since they'll only hate you more.

 

[Prozac]

three nay replies!
nice, I was thinking that originally too.

till well, an eye for an eye doesn't work but still, people of the opposing parties are torturing "us" too.
also, when torturing one man, could save the lives of lets say 100 people.
I would not mind, I'd even support it fully. ( but were do you pull the line? )

I honestly think, that it's needed these days to save the lives of civilians, however, the only thing I'm really "afraid" of is that the wrong people, the innocent people, get tortured for no reason.
which is also happening!


anyway, that's my opinion
I believe torture like this saves lives.

I don't really see it that way though. If it is an extreme enough case where torture is necessary, then I doubt the person being interrogated is going to be the type to give up information, and if they do, they are more than likely the type to lie. Just because someone already hates you doesn't give you the right to torture them since they'll only hate you more.

Lying is indeed dangerous.

and the hate thing isn't good either, but still, wouldn't you rather have forgein people hate you while knowing your citicens can sleep savely?

 

[SailorAlea]

From a moral standpoint, I oppose torture. From a utilitarian standpoint, I oppose torture.

Moral) Torture is expressly prohibited by both US law and the treaties we've signed regarding the humane treatment of prisoners and criminals.

Utilitarianism) Torture results in false confessions. We saw this extensively during the middle-ages. Also: if you're prepared to torture, risk permanent injury or death, upon someone--you'd better be sure, absolutely sure that they know the information and the ends justify the means. But can a person really BE that sure without already knowing the information? In some cases, perhaps. But due to the false confession aspect, I oppose torture under this reasoning as well.

 

[Avenger]

They'll hate Western nations regardless of the torture. And on extremists, the only way you might get information from them, is through torture.

Extremists will not surrender their information. If they're willing to die for their beliefs, why wouldn't they be willing to endure a little torture? You'd be enforcing their role as a martyr, and in their belief, giving them a greater reward upon death. That stuff is propaganda, fed to you by the media. Torture only works on normal human beings (say, in an actual war, on a normal soldier), and even then it is less efficient than lies, deception, kindness, psychology and technology.

I would rather be tortured than torture someone else. I would rather have my people be tortured, than have them torture others. This is where I stand.

 

[Adaptus]

They might be willing to die for their beliefs, but dying is very different from being tortured.

Isn't waterboarding specifically designed to make a person afraid of dying? I recall something like that was said in the last waterboarding thread.

My point is - extremists might blow themselves up 'for the greater good', but with that, their task is done, usually with a big explosion. However, I don't think extremists receive training on how to resist torture. Through pain and humiliation, you speak to a person's deepest fears, and this might help retrieve information from them.

They might be willing to blow themselves up, but resisting torture is something entirely different.

And as an aside - why do some people call me Rommyu? That's my 'last name', Shiyojin is my 'first name'. So I don't get it. Oh well.

 

[Avenger]

If you were Japanese (which the name seems to be, but I may be wrong), you'd be named Rommyu. Also, it's easier to remember Rommyu than ... Shiyojin. Less vowels.

You state that torture is different from blowing yourself up. Yes it is. The difference is that there is even greater glory in resisting torture than there is in blowing infidels apart.

 

[Adaptus]

Maybe, but resisting torture doesn't get you a bunch of virgins in heaven.

 

[Avenger]

It will, because quite frankly, it's no less a martyr act than blowing oneself up. You said yourself, torture was worse than death.

 

[Adaptus]

Yes, but I like to think that there's a bigger sacrifice involved with suicide than there is in torture, since when extremists blow themselves up, they do it by choice (whether their choice was informed or indoctrinated, it doesn't matter), but when they're tortured, they generally don't have a choice about the matter. There's little sacrifice involved there, I think.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

They're terrorists who cares. They would do the same or worse to you or I.

 

[MC]

They're terrorists who cares. They would do the same or worse to you or I.

Terrorists or not, they're still humans.

 

[SailorAlea]

They're terrorists who cares. They would do the same or worse to you or I.

The point is maintaining the moral high-ground. Even if they torture us, bomb us, etc--we're not hypocrites that would so easily abandon our principles. If you can morally decide that torture is wrong, then nobody should be tortured.

Otherwise, it doesn't have much meaning.. Who else would you be torturing? Innocent people for absolutely no reason? Funny--that's the precise thing that happened in the middle ages when torture was widely used (and intended to be used on "the guilty").

Your argument, "why give this person protection that he doesn't afford us?" is basically an argument against justice at all, over retribution. Do we simply murder a murderer, or rape a rapist/pedophile? No.. we punish them.

Even a murderer is afforded the protections of due process and law. Even if he would murder others. A terrorist deserves protection against torture even though he would torture others. It's about right and wrong, not about "an eye for an eye."

 

[Killface]

but in some cases, let's say with extremist muslims, the hate is already there. They'll hate Western nations regardless of the torture. And on extremists, the only way you might get information from them, is through torture.

Is there actually a justifiable reason for the muslims to hate the west?

 

[Rocky]

You state that torture is different from blowing yourself up. Yes it is. The difference is that there is even greater glory in resisting torture than there is in blowing infidels apart.

I don't think that's quite right, the "good deed" in martyrdom or blowing yourself up, isn't in blowing yourself up, it's in taking infidels with you. So sitting in a dark room by yourself and getting tortured till you start talking, whether you tell the truth or lies is not going to net you a harem full of virgins. At least the way I understand it.

My opinion hasn't changed much from the last thread. It may not be moral but I would rather torture a handful of extremist, angry hate-mongerers to save the lives of many peace-loving individuals, then wait till after the extremist/terrorist attacks and attempt to hunt down the cowards who did it, most likely unsuccessfully.

 

[MC]

Is there actually a justifiable reason for the muslims to hate the west?

Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, westernization, deaths of civilians, torture, etcetera.

 

[sub]

Torture is wrong. We need to stop it, immediately. I can't respect my country if we continue these acts.