Can torture be justified?

[Guest MattP]

but we have seen what it has lead to with Guantanamo Bay, where associates or family of terrorists are being detained and tortured when most likely they know nothing.

 

Guantanamo has been shitty hasn't it? No only has it made the West look barbaric and gave Islamists the best propaganda ammunition ever it has probably cost thousands more lives.

 

As I've said before because of it we probably have a situation even worse, instead of taking prisoners of war and eventually releasing them back to the families (even if they are fcuked up) we just torture them for information on the spot, put a bullet in the head and then just leave him for someone to find as a "casualty of war".

 

Not really good for anyone.

[ozleicester]

These seem to be potential consequences of a culture/regime where torture takes place as a matter of routine. I'd be absolutely opposed to that - as I would be to the use of torture for "retribution" or punishment. The case under discussion was an exceptional one, where innocent lives hypothetically depended on torture - and I've described the exceptional and highly qualified circumstances in which, regrettably, I'd see that as justifiable.

 

If, say, a captured Boko Haram fighter was tortured to prevent the murder of 100+ kidnapped schoolgirls, and that action was properly accounted for, I don't think that it would lead to the consequences that you suggest. In those circumstances, would you uphold the Boko Haram fighter's human rights and your own morality, and accept the death of those schoolgirls? I don't think such a purist stance is ultimately the moral choice - a dirty (but accountable) compromise is.

 

I'm not advocating the routine use of torture - it should be avoided wherever possible - but it wouldn't "make the law irrelevant" under the conditions I've described; on the contrary, it would be accountable under the law and would have to be justified by extreme circumstances. 

 

Captain Pancake's scenario is far too convoluted for my brain to deal with at this time of night! Re. ransoms, while I would doubtless want the ransom paid if it was my loved ones involved, in theory I absolutely support the traditional stance of not giving in to the demands of kidnappers so as not to perpetuate the cycle and fuel further attacks. Certain negotiations and compromises might be possible, provided they didn't reward or encourage terrorism.

 

Under the specific scenario CPF describes, I'd have thought that there would be other means of persuading, pressurising or tricking the relatives into providing the information required; if not, then as before it would depend on various factors whether torture might be admissible - if the kidnapped girls were almost certainly alive but would almost certainly be killed, and if you were likely to get information that would allow you to rescue them, then torture might well be justifiable.

 

I believe that long term, no matter what reason put up... state sanctioned torture is wrong, and unjustifiable.

 

The outcome will lead to a breakdown of society that makes everyone suffer. You may save the ten, the hundred, the thousand tomorrow, but you will harm the millions in the next generation.

 

i understand why people, especially when personally affected, could easily support cruel treatment of perpetrators and im not making any judgement on that (i can imagine a myriad reasons why i might take a hammer to someone)... but, if we teach our children and our future, that there are no boundaries... how can we expect them to have them? Everyone can justify something in their own heads.

 

It leads to a greater level of fear in society, and we have seen since 911 how easy it is to change entire communities/societies and their perceptions, if you can generate enough fear.

[ozleicester]

I think in a dodgy country, some of the ones I've lived and worked in, then yes, the widespread use of torture can lead to all those things. However, I think we are applying it to the UK and saying in extreme cases it can be justified to better the majority.

 

I don't see the British Government bringing in torture to stop Rincewind from posting anti-government youtube videos, but it does happen across many parts of the world, and that should indeed be condemned. 

Sorry missed this.

 

Is it possible that one of the reasons those countries are "dodgy" is their attitude toward things like torture?

 

Some may suggest that Rinceys posts are already a form of torture.    (not really Rince...i love your work ) and as he is "paid" by the government.. this whole discussion may be moot.

[David Guiza]

Just done an exam on this in Human Rights, i'm still sitting on the fence though. Of course in theory if information could be gained through torture to prevent a terrorist attack it should always be done in my opinion, the greater good and all that. But, in reality if you were to torture someone they would likely give you any information that you wanted to hear, whether it is in fact true is another matter. The law restricting it is the prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, which effectively covers everything that you would consider torture from a school beating to water boarding a suspected terrorist, and it would take somebody with huge b0ll0cks, or the stupidity of George Bush to admiss it currently.

[Rincewind]

I am not anti-government as much as anti-unfairness and unfortunately it just so happensthat there seems to be a lot about at the moment.

[Captain...]

These seem to be potential consequences of a culture/regime where torture takes place as a matter of routine. I'd be absolutely opposed to that - as I would be to the use of torture for "retribution" or punishment. The case under discussion was an exceptional one, where innocent lives hypothetically depended on torture - and I've described the exceptional and highly qualified circumstances in which, regrettably, I'd see that as justifiable.

 

If, say, a captured Boko Haram fighter was tortured to prevent the murder of 100+ kidnapped schoolgirls, and that action was properly accounted for, I don't think that it would lead to the consequences that you suggest. In those circumstances, would you uphold the Boko Haram fighter's human rights and your own morality, and accept the death of those schoolgirls? I don't think such a purist stance is ultimately the moral choice - a dirty (but accountable) compromise is.

 

I'm not advocating the routine use of torture - it should be avoided wherever possible - but it wouldn't "make the law irrelevant" under the conditions I've described; on the contrary, it would be accountable under the law and would have to be justified by extreme circumstances. 

 

Captain Pancake's scenario is far too convoluted for my brain to deal with at this time of night! Re. ransoms, while I would doubtless want the ransom paid if it was my loved ones involved, in theory I absolutely support the traditional stance of not giving in to the demands of kidnappers so as not to perpetuate the cycle and fuel further attacks. Certain negotiations and compromises might be possible, provided they didn't reward or encourage terrorism.

 

Under the specific scenario CPF describes, I'd have thought that there would be other means of persuading, pressurising or tricking the relatives into providing the information required; if not, then as before it would depend on various factors whether torture might be admissible - if the kidnapped girls were almost certainly alive but would almost certainly be killed, and if you were likely to get information that would allow you to rescue them, then torture might well be justifiable.

 

With regards Boko Haram, if you capture a foot soldier, he may have some information, but torturing him is not going to guarantee the safety of the school girls, he may tell you their location, he may give you mis-information and delay the operation, he may not even know, they may move around. But say he does know their location, what then? Do you storm in guns blazing, how many of these school girls will get killed in the crossfire?

 

But what does it say if you do physically and brutally torture this foot soldier? In the whole war on terror, he is just a private, by allowing him to be tortured, you are basically advocating the torture of any captured British Soldiers. Is that ok?

[Merging Cultures]

Sorry missed this.

 

Is it possible that one of the reasons those countries are "dodgy" is their attitude toward things like torture?

 

Some may suggest that Rinceys posts are already a form of torture.    (not really Rince...i love your work ) and as he is "paid" by the government.. this whole discussion may be moot.

 

My comment was that they have widespread use of torture, as opposed to intelligence led torture in extreme cases. So, yes they are dodgy because they have a liberal approach to torture, corruption, gender/race/sexuality inequality and they are usually led by people hellbent on staying in power.

[nothin2seehere]

Your kids are in the school of girls who have been kidnapped in Nigeria.

 

You have the bloke who knows where they are but won't give it up, he has been known before to give up information under torture.

 

The government offers to use it to help you get your family back before they are sold as sex slaves for this mans accomplices to profit?

 

Decision?

 

Let's flip that around a bit.

 

Your child / children have kidnapped some persons of authority. The government has approved torturing your children as a method of getting them to give up information.

 

Decision?

 

(Edit: For the record, I do not approve of torture).

[Guest MattP]

Let's flip that around a bit.

 

Your child / children have kidnapped some persons of authority. The government has approved torturing your children as a method of getting them to give up information.

 

Decision?

 

(Edit: For the record, I do not approve of torture).

 

You haven't really flipped it around though have you?

 

Kidnapping a "person in authority" is a million miles away from kidnapping 200 schoolgirls because you hold a belief that Western education should be forbidden.

 

You are talking about such a different situation when you are talking about persons in authority of government or soldiers involved in war compared to innocent people just trying to go about their lives.

[nothin2seehere]

You haven't really flipped it around though have you?

 

Kidnapping a "person in authority" is a million miles away from kidnapping 200 schoolgirls because you hold a belief that Western education should be forbidden.

 

You are talking about such a different situation when you are talking about persons in authority of government or soldiers involved in war compared to innocent people just trying to go about their lives.

Ok, the analogy was bad. Let's just assume that it was your children that were the ones about the be tortured, by any means necessary. Doesn't matter what the reasoning is for the decision to use torture really.

[leftbackinthechangingroom]

While I disagree with torture to gain information. If someone sexually assaulted and killed a child I don't think i would be so forgiving. As far as I'm concerned you give up your human rights as soon as you do that and deserve anything you get

[Guest MattP]

I believe that long term, no matter what reason put up... state sanctioned torture is wrong, and unjustifiable.

 

The outcome will lead to a breakdown of society that makes everyone suffer. You may save the ten, the hundred, the thousand tomorrow, but you will harm the millions in the next generation.

 

i understand why people, especially when personally affected, could easily support cruel treatment of perpetrators and im not making any judgement on that (i can imagine a myriad reasons why i might take a hammer to someone)... but, if we teach our children and our future, that there are no boundaries... how can we expect them to have them? Everyone can justify something in their own heads.

 

It leads to a greater level of fear in society, and we have seen since 911 how easy it is to change entire communities/societies and their perceptions, if you can generate enough fear.

 

I can't imagine actually being this simplistic, what about a scenario where someone could blow up the earth if he didn't give up information under torture? Would you allow the 6billion and the planet to just vanish in case it leads to a breakdown in society (which of course it won't)

 

The second line is the most ridiculous thing I've heard, the people who use these methods will continue to use them, the leniency shown to the 200 schoolgirls or the Al Queda bombers leads to it being 500 schoolgirls next time. Your view is so typical of someone in the Western culture living a life as he pleases with no issues to worry about, everythings fine and dandy for me so whatever your situation you do what I say.

 

You have to trust our children that sometimes people do bad things for the greater good of humanity, if you don't have the confidence that they can understans that, we've already lost the battle you are trying to win.

 

You are typical of what vast swaths of the left are like these days, never done anything, never had to make an important decision and think that you can solve everything and make the world a better place by doing absolutely nothing except imparting tedious rules and regulations upon the law abiding.

 

You are the greatest allies of groups like Boko Haram.

[Guest MattP]

Ok, the analogy was bad. Let's just assume that it was your children that were the ones about the be tortured, by any means necessary. Doesn't matter what the reasoning is for the decision to use torture really.

 

As I have already said, if my children were causing destruction and committing kidnap and murder of the innocent, I would have no problem with them being taken out for the greater good by any means.

 

Would you stand idly by and allow the innocent to suffer so your child who is professing evil could live?

[David Guiza]

As I have already said, if my children were causing destruction and committing kidnap and murder of the innocent, I would have no problem with them being taken out for the greater good by any means.

 

Would you stand idly by and allow the innocent to suffer so your child who is professing evil could live?

Granted, and i'm sure the vast majority agree. But, what about if they were not committing these crimes, and were merely mistaken for somebody else, and were then 'taken out for the greater good', similar to Charles De Menezes (I think it was, during the 7/7 bombings).

The use of torture could have a great effect in saving huge numbers, BUT it could also result in being what is effectively a Guantimo Bay type scenario to a much lesser extent. Or, as said above, innefective.

[Manwell Pablo]

What is the acceptable level?

 

you can torture 1 to save 100...ok?

you can torture 10 to save 30..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 100..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 1...ok?

 

You going to answer Matt's post?

[Guest MattP]

You going to answer Matt's post?

Is he hell.

Not a single one of the 'no justification in any circumstance' lot have, which probably says it all.

[Merging Cultures]

Granted, and i'm sure the vast majority agree. But, what about if they were not committing these crimes, and were merely mistaken for somebody else, and were then 'taken out for the greater good', similar to Charles De Menezes (I think it was, during the 7/7 bombings).

The use of torture could have a great effect in saving huge numbers, BUT it could also result in being what is effectively a Guantimo Bay type scenario to a much lesser extent. Or, as said above, innefective.

 

I am all for 'people being taken out for the greater good' and if they are found as innocent the families being fairly compensated (millions upon millions). No, it doesn't bring your child back, but I would think that at least the Government is trying to look after the population and prevent terrorism. Intelligence can and is being improved. But there will always be that 'one in several (7) million' chance of mistaken identity.

 

As I have said with De Menezes, if you are here illegally and there is very little documentation about who you are, then you are more likely to be the 'one in several (7) million' who will be a case of mistaken identity. Do everything by the book and the Government and intelligence communities will have bucket loads of information on you and there will not be a case of mistaken identity.

[leicsmac]

Is he hell.

Not a single one of the 'no justification in any circumstance' lot have, which probably says it all.

 

I think I gave a reasonable practical reason for it not being justified on Page 1, though I guess it comes down to what you define as 'torture'.

[leicsmac]

I am all for 'people being taken out for the greater good' and if they are found as innocent the families being fairly compensated (millions upon millions). No, it doesn't bring your child back, but I would think that at least the Government is trying to look after the population and prevent terrorism. Intelligence can and is being improved. But there will always be that 'one in several (7) million' chance of mistaken identity.

 

As I have said with De Menezes, if you are here illegally and there is very little documentation about who you are, then you are more likely to be the 'one in several (7) million' who will be a case of mistaken identity. Do everything by the book and the Government and intelligence communities will have bucket loads of information on you and there will not be a case of mistaken identity.

 

I'm sure those millions of pounds mean a great deal to the family of an innocent man taken away from them.

 

Sorry, I don't give a toss what insurance companies/governments/whoever says...a life is above monetary value. That being said, I do agree the Government has an obligation to protect the people who elect them and that such organisations are fallible and sometimes things go very bad.

 

As an addenum, I'm not fantastically fanatical about giving governments and intelligence communities loads of information on me either, but then that comes from my natural distrust for ANY people in power who haven't justified themselves personally.

[Captain...]

I am all for 'people being taken out for the greater good' and if they are found as innocent the families being fairly compensated (millions upon millions). No, it doesn't bring your child back, but I would think that at least the Government is trying to look after the population and prevent terrorism. Intelligence can and is being improved. But there will always be that 'one in several (7) million' chance of mistaken identity.

 

As I have said with De Menezes, if you are here illegally and there is very little documentation about who you are, then you are more likely to be the 'one in several (7) million' who will be a case of mistaken identity. Do everything by the book and the Government and intelligence communities will have bucket loads of information on you and there will not be a case of mistaken identity.

 

Whoah there, when did this turn into a discussion about taking out innocent people "for the greater good", non lethal torture is one thing, but killing innocents just in case. The whole De Menezes case was seriously fvcked up, and there is no justification for what happened, to restrain someone and shoot him several times in the head is just beyond wrong. He was innocent, regardless of his immigrant status, and no amount of millions of pounds would put that right. I will accept compensating someone for giving them a light torturing/rough interrogating in the interest of "the greater good". But taking someone's life on dubious evidence at best, you really condone that?

[Merging Cultures]

I think I gave a reasonable practical reason for it not being justified on Page 1, though I guess it comes down to what you define as 'torture'.

 

You gave some very good points. It might not yield 100% accurate information, but then what is? The information gathered might be the best information available and may save innocent lives.

 

What is torture? Psychological techniques and threatening loved ones could be considered torture. But I agree, it shouldn't be used for punishment.

[Guest MattP]

I think I gave a reasonable practical reason for it not being justified on Page 1, though I guess it comes down to what you define as 'torture'.

 

You gave a pretty good account of why you never believe torture was justified, but you didn't answer the hypothetical question I raised.

[Merging Cultures]

Whoah there, when did this turn into a discussion about taking out innocent people "for the greater good", non lethal torture is one thing, but killing innocents just in case. The whole De Menezes case was seriously fvcked up, and there is no justification for what happened, to restrain someone and shoot him several times in the head is just beyond wrong. He was innocent, regardless of his immigrant status, and no amount of millions of pounds would put that right. I will accept compensating someone for giving them a light torturing/rough interrogating in the interest of "the greater good". But taking someone's life on dubious evidence at best, you really condone that?

 

Check David Guiza's post.

 

You seem to have escalated it to the Government now killing people 'just in case'. I am not suggesting the Government goes around killing people for the fun of it! They had reasonable cause, based on the information they had, to shoot De Menezes. It later came out that he was innocent. It would be the same situation for justifying torture to extract information. They would have to act on the best information they had. That information might turn out incorrect in the future, but how do you measure that risk?

 

We are all in the public domain, we are not going to have a case of mistaken identity, or at least we are less likely to be the one in many many million case.

[Merging Cultures]

I'm sure those millions of pounds mean a great deal to the family of an innocent man taken away from them.

 

Sorry, I don't give a toss what insurance companies/governments/whoever says...a life is above monetary value. That being said, I do agree the Government has an obligation to protect the people who elect them and that such organisations are fallible and sometimes things go very bad.

 

As an addenum, I'm not fantastically fanatical about giving governments and intelligence communities loads of information on me either, but then that comes from my natural distrust for ANY people in power who haven't justified themselves personally.

 

I agree, they will still feel loss and aggrieved. I would be sad to lose my family members. But good to see we are on the same page.

 

I also am not fanatical about giving Governments and Intel communities information. Unfortunately, it just happens. Talking about this subject has probably got GCHQ scanning FT!

[Guest MattP]

You gave some very good points. It might not yield 100% accurate information, but then what is? The information gathered might be the best information available and may save innocent lives.

 

What is torture? Psychological techniques and threatening loved ones could be considered torture. But I agree, it shouldn't be used for punishment.

 

Exactly, despite what people say about torture if you read a lot of military literature the "I'd say anything to make them stop" is actually not really an argumment against it as it barely has happened.

 

You aren't just released after it you know, the information would be checked and probably acted upon and if you were found to be lying it would be even more unpleasent than what you had just received.

 

In one of McNabs books he explains there comes a time when you realise someone doesn't know anything, the guys who do this probably know that more than we do, it's not like the movies.