Torture: Necessary evil? (national security)

[Valley Oak]

Is torture justifiable if national security depends on it?

We have 9/11 to consider and possible future terrorist attempts on U.S. soil where you and your loved ones can become fatalities.

There is also the popular program, "24" (Jack Bauer is the main character) where terrorists and other horrifying villains are broken with very aggressive interrogation techniques or just plain torture.

Keeping these images in mind and the context in which they are in, do you support torture in extraordinary and exceptional cases where the lives of thousands of people are at grave risk?

You may add in your own option, if you wish.

Edward

[Clancy]

Absolutely not. The power of the media to brainwash people is astounding. You are using a FICTION to justify criminal behavior that is ineffective according to the real professionals. Not only is torture not effective (people will say literally anything to make it stop), it's counter-productive, because if we use torture WE are the bad guys, and we could hardly complain when torture is used on our troops could we.

The following article explains;

Torture To Get Information Doesn't Work

One the more frustrating thing about all this discussion about torture is that people ignore the fact that torture is not just morally wrong, but it also just flat out doesn't work. Military experts who oppose torture don't oppose it because they are squeamish, but because it is such a poor way to get accurate information. As Anne Applebaum puts it:

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

She then asks the right question:

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Yes, this is the problem. People still want to believe that torture works because they are convinced that people will give up good information under duress. But what really happens is people will happily spill their guts when given the chance, but the value of what they spill is extremely low.

While there is significant debate over the general effectiveness of torture, it appears that it is not a particularly effective means of acquiring accurate information.

First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable.

Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.

Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.

Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.

Since torture is not an effective means of getting good information, then why do people persist in using it?

Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power.

So, what we have is a system that does not provide reliable information that we can use to protect ourselves, but instead we have a system that promotes intimidation and therefore a state such as Saddam ruled. What does that say about Americans who advocate torture?
https://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/...es/000847.html

[ThePhiant]

can you define torture for us?
so we know what is being discussed

Is torture justifiable if national security depends on it?

We have 9/11 to consider and possible future terrorist attempts on U.S. soil where you and your loved ones can become fatalities.

There is also the popular program, "24" (Jack Bauer is the main character) where terrorists and other horrifying villains are broken with very aggressive interrogation techniques or just plain torture.

Keeping these images in mind and the context in which they are in, do you support torture in extraordinary and exceptional cases where the lives of thousands of people are at grave risk?

You may add in your own option, if you wish.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

How about this definition from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

can you define torture for us?
so we know what is being discussed

[ThePhiant]

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,

so let me see, if i were put in jail, which would cause me severe suffering,
that constitutes torture?
like the journalist who wouldn't give the info of her source?

How about this definition from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

[Valley Oak]

I think that Wikipedia's definition and information sheds enough light, at least for me. You can do more research on the net.

I'm interested in seeing others reply to your questions.

Edward

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,

so let me see, if i were put in jail, which would cause me severe suffering,
that constitutes torture?
like the journalist who wouldn't give the info of her source?