Torture

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:34 pm

Is torture ever justified? The CIA's interrogation manual from decades ago, call KUBARK, refers to torture as being generally useless, as the information gained from it is often inaccurate. There are situations where it could be useful, however would it be 'right' to use it in extreme cases?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57750

manadren · Post by **manadren** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:48 pm

No. There is no real was to know if the information is true, and no real incentive for a victim to tell the truth in the end. All you are left with is sadism.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57825

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:16 am

torture proved useful during the inquisition

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57830

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:26 am

Only way I would justify torture is to someone who was ridiculously cruel to others, and multiple tiles. (for a single offense, it would be overkill, just jail the person) Things like child abuse, sexual abuse, animal abuse etc...

But since we're talking about using it to gain information, I highly doubt it's effective. They can lie their whole way through anyway. Though my guess is what is more effective for this is actually killing with kindness. Take someone like Saddam. If the people who he was with became nice with him and actually treated him as a friend, I bet they would get way more information. It would not surprise me if this is actually how they approached him. As hard as it may be to do, its probably way more effective.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57831

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:26 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: Only way I would justify torture is to someone who was ridiculously cruel to others, and multiple tiles. (for a single offense, it would be overkill, just jail the person)

funny you should meantion 'jail' as the supreme court of Canada had ruled that jail is 'cruel'

however it is not 'unusual'

and as the Charter states, not subjected to 'cruel AND unusual' punishment, jailing someone continues

in a nutshel we can be 'cruel' just not 'unusually cruel'

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57836

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:08 pm

lol what if its just unusual punishment? like making someone sit in a tub of jello.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57838

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:39 pm

Clueless wrote: lol what if its just unusual punishment? like making someone sit in a tub of jello.

legally that would fit the definition of what is allowable and sounds fun

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57842

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:49 pm

Stasi wrote: Is torture ever justified? The CIA's interrogation manual from decades ago, call KUBARK, refers to torture as being generally useless, as the information gained from it is often inaccurate. There are situations where it could be useful, however would it be 'right' to use it in extreme cases?

In my opinion no, never.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57847

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:51 pm

I think extra-coercive methods have their use, on occasion, thought not as a part of any regular interrogation process. 'Torture' is only really useful if you can corroborate some of the information the individual is giving you. Beyond that, you have to trust that the individual is fearful enough of further coercion that s/he wouldn't give you misinformation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57850

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:53 pm

Reaper wrote:
Stasi wrote: Is torture ever justified? The CIA's interrogation manual from decades ago, call KUBARK, refers to torture as being generally useless, as the information gained from it is often inaccurate. There are situations where it could be useful, however would it be 'right' to use it in extreme cases?

In my opinion no, never.

Never say never.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57852

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:54 pm

Is sleep deprivation torture according to. . .oh I don't know, Geneva?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57853

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:58 pm

The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57859

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:48 pm

Stasi wrote: It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

so for example if someone is lawfully detained 'imprissioned' and is raped would that be inherent or incidental or torture?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57885

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:56 pm

Depends on whether or not it is sanctioned or committed by a representative of the institution or state.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57886

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:33 pm

Stasi wrote:
Reaper wrote:
Stasi wrote: Is torture ever justified? The CIA's interrogation manual from decades ago, call KUBARK, refers to torture as being generally useless, as the information gained from it is often inaccurate. There are situations where it could be useful, however would it be 'right' to use it in extreme cases?

In my opinion no, never.

Never say never.

Fine.

Then I say no, not usually.

Ah, but when? Maybe I'll answer that later.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57910

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:31 pm

I guess if you view torture as an absolute wrong whose wrongness can't be mitigated by whatever benefit it may yield, then go ahead and say 'never'.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:57917

flowergirlajg · Post by **flowergirlajg** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:47 pm

2 words\nTOURTURE SUCKS

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3133, old post ID:58699