Torture/Interrogation

I fall under the category of believing torture is a justified means of extracting information ONLY in dire situations. I realize one of the major arguments against torture is how it is an inhumane act of violence that only elicits false information. I do agree that it is an inhumane act of violence. However, I do not agree that it only elicits false information.

To make my point more clear, I draw upon the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. In this situation, a bomb is about to explode and you have the prime suspect captured and are currently interrogating him. However, he's either refusing to provide you information about the bomb's location or really isn't the terrorist. In this case, the only means to saving hundreds if not thousands of lives depend on extracting that information.

In this case, if we torture the guy, the information extracted can lead to but would not guarantee preserving the lives of many. Not doing so would definitely lead to the deaths of many. In my opinion, the mere chance of being able to preserve those lives gives justification for the use of torture. However, this is only under the premise that we are beyond doubt and are certain that the prime suspect is clearly guilty. Do note that these factors into a really unlikely scenario, but a plausible scenario none the less.

Now, onto the point where some argue that torture only leads to false confessions. This is true... to a small sense. Then again, all forms of interrogation lead to false confessions initially... unless the criminal is so wracked up with guilt that they voluntarily confess. If they commit a crime and can get away with it, why wouldn't they lie to do so? So here comes the hard part: when are they telling the truth? Thing is, we can't tell without checking. When we can check, we either get rewarded with the truth in which case causes interrogators to use this method more or get punished with false information in which case interrogators would "relieve" their stress on the victim. The theory behind this method is that: only the guilty would confess their crimes. An innocent person would continue to claim their innocence even in the face of torture. However, this simply isn't true in reality.

This is the reason why I would limit torture to situations similar to the ticking time bomb. In that situation, many people are in immediate danger and can be saved only if information has been extracted quickly. There is a chance that the person in question may be innocent, but the price is rather small if we can manage to save the many. I may sound like a bastard when I say that, but I stand by my morals.

This leads me to another point which I do not agree with. People have argued that there are no moral justification for the use of torture. I ask those people to define what morality means to them. To help define it, I ask these questions: Is it alright to steal bread to feed your starving family? Is it alright to lock some fatally infected people in some room in order to stop the virus from contaminating the population and thus leaving those few to their doom? Is it alright to violate one man's liberty if it can mean the survival of thousands or millions? A young man with a bullet wound and a gun stops your car and asks you to drive him to a hospital, would you be morally justified to deny his request? Your spouse/significant other broke a major law, would you report him/her? You found a winning lottery ticket, would you take it to the lost and found?

We face moral dilemmas all the time. Saying there is no justification for either side is a foolish thought in my opinion.

P.S. I'm happen to be writing my field study paper on this subject. So glad I get to share my thoughts on this since it's already on my mind.

I don't think everything you would get out of the torture would be accurate. So no I believe torture is not always the right action. You can get the info through other means.

As long as niggas are suvivin then dis okays.

Sorry for being slow to catch on but when you say that it makes me a bit confused. What kind of interrogation and prisoner do you mean exactly that could make you feel that way? The World War II kind where you torture information out of an enemy spy thus protecting the country? Or a terrorist member of a huge group that's gonna bomb the entire of America?[/quote]


I had to get my computer fixed and haven't been online for a while so my apoligies for the late reply. Well, I was talking more about it in a general view, but to answer your question I think I'm leaning more towards the "terrorist member of a huge group that's gonna bomb the entire of America" just because of the huge commotion of terrorism today and how torture for interrogation purposes are mostly used towards them (the terrorists).

Torture will only give you the answer you want to hear .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wKmco16cOs&list=FLcI01AB4KzumsuILLboebAw&index=30

My thoughts on torture are pretty similar.

No that's horrible. Torture is horrible.

I believe torture is very ineffective when it comes to extracting information. That said, I'm not all that opposed to it for moral reasons.

Sure, I'd rather it not happen, but when it comes down to it, many of the people being tortured are hardened combatants. I don't think there's a particularly big difference between shooting an enemy combatant in the heat of combat and mutilating him later, although I can see why others are appalled by this. Also, humanity's been rising a bit lately; most torture (in the U.S., at least) is pretty mild; no gouged eyes or flaying. Not saying it's not bad, just saying it's not as bad as it has been.

I believe it's a waste of time and money first and foremost, with the add-on that it's fairly cruel.

Detaining people whose involvement in anything threatening national security is flimsy at best is a totally different topic.

Most people are citing that torture is an unreliable means of extracting information, which over the course of a few years seems to have been taught to people. Opposition to the Bush administration, which many people highly dislike, the moral implications which cause society to accept people and discourse that is against torture rather than for it, and other such things have, in my opinion, constructed people's opinions to be against torture.

It is possible that torture provides unreliable information. It is possible it provides more information. It is possible it provides information faster.
All of these are possibilities which are determinable in my opinion only through evidence, and even then, people are different and thus I would consider the effectiveness of each technique is highly variable.
It may be a bad thing that people are tortured in terms of the image of the United States. In another avenue, you could consider that torture could be used as a deterrent, but that's not likely to work very well (look at the prison system, ho ho ho random political statements).

All in all I personally am not sure if allowing torture would be a good or bad thing...Oh also note, the evidence often cited for saying torture provides bad information are usually either something like, it didn't work for Iraq, in which case you must also consider the "torture" is very very mild in comparison to some of the things which could be done (and those may provide better information, considering that it's possible terrorists have been trained for torture, only the more severe torture should be of any effect right?).
Also things like the Spanish Inquisition, where incorrect information was gathered. I would, however, gander that for the Spanish Inquisition that is the fault of the individual interrogators who did not necessarily care about the information's accuracy, and thus I view that as a mildly fallible argument.

In one of my opinions, it's possible to say that yes, torture may not be the most effective method. HOWEVER, perhaps that's not a reason to restrict it. If you get the most educated and professional interrogator who is capable of extracting information with ALL techniques, torture and discussion and making friends and bargains, and allow them to do whatever they want, and make judgments on what techniques are going to be most effective for each individual, wouldn't they be better at it than anyone who is limited in using any techniques as long as they have a sufficient level of skill? That is, however, a "perfect" situation, and possibly not an attainable thing. Either way, something to think about.



I'm very curious as to the necessity of absolute guilt in this situation, and what is considered absolute guilt (in this very unlikely situation). It is true that ideally you would know the perpetrator guilty, but if you don't, is it not similarly an extension of "moral laws" much in the similar way (BUT NOT THE EXACT) that allowing torture even is? You are doing something you shouldn't to save people. Why not also say that in dire situations, torturing someone who is not necessarily guilty but you have suspicion, is also justified in order to save lives or whatnot?

Oh yes I also find it funny that people are assuming that interrogation not grounded in torture always (well they probably aren't assuming THAT much) yields reliable information, which I'm sure it does not always, although it can. I do not know the relative effectiveness of each technique.



It is a step too far to say that there are NO moral justifications for almost anything. There were moral justifications for Hitler, for Stalin, for Robespierre, but that doesn't necessarily make them right, even if they may be.
I do have a mild issue with examples, in that they can very rarely be direct enough to state a point without flaws, often even fatal flaws. Every situation is different, but that's what I'll say about those examples.
Oh also, breaking the law does not necessarily mean anything morally wrong (inherently) in most (but not all) forms of morality, and the extension of reporting someone who did break a morale code brings up more questions.
Essentially your examples can be interesting but they bring up questions of how situations effect things and that's sortof what you wanted, but it also seems like you're trying to lead people into agreeing with you, and if that's the case I don't have the most agreement.

Personally I find morality too difficult to define. I feel like most people (I could be wrong) can only define morality in a very limited way. They may be able to define it for humanity, but not be able to adjust for specific situations. They may be able to define it for themselves but not for others. Personally I cannot even define it, the ideas of right and wrong.

Well to boil it down, since my battery is getting low, and since I'm gonna go do something else, the point is that there may or may not be "correct" moral justification for torture, but you probably have to decide that for yourself in all situations, and I'm not sure if you're even capable of debating that to be for or against something.
So I would rather hear the most basic and mostly undeniable bits of the argument, the data, and that doesn't seem to be something I'm capable of getting or many people are capable of gathering, so unfortunately I am unable to make any definite judgments on this particular argument on one side or another.
While moral implications of actions is definitely completely relevant to most arguments, they're so variable that I prefer to have the data, and then add the morals as seasoning to finish the idea.

I still think it's quite logically possible that GIVEN A PERFECT SITUATION, allowing an interrogator who is sufficiently proficient to use whatever techniques he wants will almost undeniably produce the most information possible.

(To add a small footnote, in an imperfect situation, e.g. reality (haha hoho), it's possible that abuse of torture, lack of skill required, and other such things would make the availability of torture as a tool ineffective, and additionally, who's to say who is even capable of using torture adequately? And what of the effects socially and globally if it is known or not known and if it would be hidden or public information? I guess what I'm trying to say is for every issue there is much more to think about than almost always just a yes or no answer.)

Also. Apparently I just wrote a book or something. Beware, wall of text.

Meh I agree with tegumi. Its an old concept. Less you nearly kill the person. Which is wrong anyway and should not be an option of getting the truth out of somebody.

I think that if you torture people in order to protect yourself, you are kind of demeaning what it is you are standing for. You really lose the position of, "We are the good guys, they are the ones trying to hurt us."
Everything becomes even more gray.

I saw an interview of the man who discovered who the mastermind behind 9/11 was. He said it always through off terrorist whenever the interrogators would be calm, or try to build a rapport with the captive. They were taught American's were evil and vicious, and were basically monsters.

If you really think you are the good guy on the side of a conflict, you should not stoop to doing the deplorable things of the very enemy you are fighting.