Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I ♥ Torture

I ♥ Torture
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:00 AM
 
Trump proposed waterboarding is acceptable considering of the ruthless nature of the enemy.

I'm not going to argue it should be taken off the table, but I will argue if your morals dance to the beat of how the other guy drums, you actually may not have had morals in the first place.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 30, 2016 at 11:46 AM. Reason: mixed metaphor)
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Cause - effect.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:22 AM
 
Can you clarify? This could be interpreted in multiple ways.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
So basically, Terrorists use inhuman methods in pursuit of their goals (because they are terrorists) so we can as well.

Giving yourself moral equivalency with ISIS is stupid and dangerous. At least hold yourself to some kind of moral standards.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Cause - effect.
It strikes me the proper cause for the effect of torture is "needing information in a timely manner".

What's being presented as the proper cause is "because they're ****ers".
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
So basically, Terrorists use inhuman methods in pursuit of their goals (because they are terrorists) so we can as well.

Giving yourself moral equivalency with ISIS is stupid and dangerous. At least hold yourself to some kind of moral standards.
It seems that way to me.

If your morals can't be consistently applied they are situational.

This is generally considered a bad thing.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It seems that way to me.

If your morals can't be consistently applied they are situational.

This is generally considered a bad thing.
and if they vanish completely in the face of provocation, then you never had any in the first place.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:29 PM
 
Lets fight our enemies, but for PC sake we'll have rules. Bwa-haa-haa!
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Lets fight our enemies, but for PC sake we'll have rules. Bwa-haa-haa!
No, because you are not an animal.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:37 PM
 
It's almost as if having a moral code involves sacrifice.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:50 PM
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the moral equivalences being assumed here.

@subego
I value life, and against any kind of killing in any situation. I'm also against *physical* violence.

So, Question:
If A is hellbent on trying to kill B, is it morally reconcilable for B to fight back to preserve his life? Or should B "sacrifice" his life to be morally consistent?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
No, because you are not an animal.
We are ALL animals. We have a social system too. Feeling good about yourself because of your actions is a liberal construct. Its also really stupid.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the moral equivalences being assumed here.

@subego
I value life, and against any kind of killing in any situation. I'm also against *physical* violence.

So, Question:
If A is hellbent on trying to kill B, is it morally reconcilable for B to fight back to preserve his life? Or should B "sacrifice" his life to be morally consistent?
B cannot retaliate if they wish to claim their moral code is to be against killing in any situation.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:28 PM
 
And those folks will be wiped out of existence. Moral and dead. Like I said, STUPID.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
B cannot retaliate if they wish to claim their moral code is to be against killing in any situation.
How about using physical force("violence") to defend himself to preserve his life?

To be specific: A stranger is hellbent on killing you, so they lunge at you repeatedly with a knife or some other weapon. Would you:
1. Use whatever means necessary to prevent harm from coming to you. including using force to subdue & disarm them
2. Do nothing to be morally consistent.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
We are ALL animals. We have a social system too. Feeling good about yourself because of your actions is a liberal construct. Its also really stupid.
Not sure what the point of torturing people for being ****ers is beyond a rather demented form of feeling good about yourself because of your actions.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
How about using physical force("violence") to defend himself to preserve his life?

To be specific: A stranger is hellbent on killing you, so they lunge at you repeatedly with a knife or some other weapon. Would you:
1. Use whatever means necessary to prevent harm from coming to you. including using force to subdue & disarm them
2. Do nothing to be morally consistent.
I'd defend myself, but self-defense isn't against my moral code. I don't have a moral objection to killing people in all circumstances.

As an outside observer I can only state if one has a moral objection to killing in all circumstances, by picking number 1 they have violated their moral code, by picking number 2 they have not.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:50 PM
 
Hawkeye, That's not apples and oranges, and you know it. Of course individuals can defend ourselves. We're talking captives under our control here. How far to go for information? How to know it is good information when obtained by extreme measures? People will say lots of things to make pain stop, true or not.

The point of the moral outrage, is we hate and scorn enemies who torture, who televise executions, who do these horrible things... call them inhuman to justify our own retribution.

So a) if we do the same things are we any different; and b) by using the same tactics we lose any high ground as "innocent bystander of them crazy terrorists". Which some say causes c) "look at them americans hating us, we should hate them back even harder." Which causes d) endless circle.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:11 PM
 
Moral high ground doesn't really exist.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:13 PM
 
Go on...
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And those folks will be wiped out of existence. Moral and dead. Like I said, STUPID.
This is NOT an immediate and existential threat to you personally. There is no equivalent.

Our whole society is precepts on us HAVING morals, ISIS's world view is different. They stand zero chance of "wiping us out of existence". We stand every chance of polluting our own society with their morals. Why stop with them, why not the next bunch along? Surely police interrogations would go much better with a pot of torture! Would up the clear up stats enormously.

This is all before you get to the fact that torture is probably the single most spectacularly inefficient method of obtaining information and the single most spectacularly efficient recruiter to ISIS's cause.

I sense this argument is not new to NN
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:21 PM
 
I see this discussion about whether we should torture or not, however, don't you think the question to ask prior to that is whether torture works or not? I see lots of room to doubt it does. I recall watching "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson as a Black Ops interrogator, and I thought the film brought up some great points, but again, if in real life torture just gets people to simply makes stuff up, then isn't it really just retribution, or that interrogators and the people who order the interrogations wrong?
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:33 PM
 
@subeg, andi
Im not trying to make excuses for or justify torture/violence/killing in any way shape or form.

I was just trying to to point out that "absolute" conformance to an abstract moral code is theoretical; probably not practical.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@subeg, andi
Im not trying to make excuses for or justify torture/violence/killing in any way shape or form.

I was just trying to to point out that "absolute" conformance to an abstract moral code is theoretical; probably not practical.
But that doesn't excuse you from not sticking to a moral code in non immediately life threatening situations.
The decision to torture is made at a remove, but politicians and senior officers. It's a moral choice made not under duress.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@subeg, andi
Im not trying to make excuses for or justify torture/killing in any way shape or form.

I was just trying to to point out that "absolute" conformance to an abstract moral code is theoretical; probably not practical.
You may very well be correct, however all that's been demonstrated is a simple moral code isn't going to get you anywhere.

WRT torture, I feel the absolute minimum moral requirement is to tie its use directly to the timely acquisition of information. This as opposed to a consequence for a person or organization's behavior.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape View Post
I see this discussion about whether we should torture or not, however, don't you think the question to ask prior to that is whether torture works or not? I see lots of room to doubt it does. I recall watching "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson as a Black Ops interrogator, and I thought the film brought up some great points, but again, if in real life torture just gets people to simply makes stuff up, then isn't it really just retribution, or that interrogators and the people who order the interrogations wrong?
I think solid data on this is going to hard to come by.

I would surmise the most effective torture is actually more akin to blackmail. Torture is used, but not on the person with the information.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 03:04 PM
 
The only people I think who would agree to follow Hawkeye's #2 option for moral consistency, are the Pope, Mother Theresa, and Ghandhi. Maybe there are some religious people who would hold to that standard, but a lot of them put "do not kill" commandments etc into a box when it comes to people outside their culture, or circumstances beyond the theoretical. A lot of gun-users are also religious.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
This Pope would totally cut you.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape View Post
I see this discussion about whether we should torture or not, however, don't you think the question to ask prior to that is whether torture works or not? I see lots of room to doubt it does. I recall watching "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson as a Black Ops interrogator, and I thought the film brought up some great points, but again, if in real life torture just gets people to simply makes stuff up, then isn't it really just retribution, or that interrogators and the people who order the interrogations wrong?


Sounds like plenty of people here want to get revenge with no regard for whether or not it works.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 05:03 PM
 
Can torture work? Yes. If a person knows a thing and you're certain they do, then it can be effective in extracting it. The problem is, the person has to actually know the information first. Waterboarding someone because they might know is, more often than not, a waste of time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
and if they vanish completely in the face of provocation, then you never had any in the first place.
Just an FYI, this is the post i've been addressing in my posts in this specific thread. (I should have quoted it in my original post).

I'm not particularly informed on the torture debate, but i am of the impression that it is not acceptable.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Can torture work? Yes. If a person knows a thing and you're certain they do, then it can be effective in extracting it. The problem is, the person has to actually know the information first. Waterboarding someone because they might know is, more often than not, a waste of time.
An excellent point.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Just an FYI, this is the post i've been addressing in my posts in this specific thread. (I should have quoted it in my original post).

I'm not particularly informed on the torture debate, but i am of the impression that it is not acceptable.
I don't think it's binary.

Presuming the situation is one where it can be effective, a judgement call needs to be made based on the circumstances.

I wouldn't do it to save one life, I can't think of an argument against it to save 100. In-between is fuzzy.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Can torture work? Yes. If a person knows a thing and you're certain they do, then it can be effective in extracting it. The problem is, the person has to actually know the information first. Waterboarding someone because they might know is, more often than not, a waste of time.
An excellent point.
But therein lies the rub. The only way you can be "certain" that person knows something is if you already know it yourself. So then what would be the point in torturing them to tell you what you already know? And if you don't already know as CTP stated more often than not it's a waste of time. Because they will say anything ... including giving you misinformation ... to make the pain stop.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 09:15 PM
 
There are scenarios wherein one can be more assured or less assured any given individual has a piece of information.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But therein lies the rub. The only way you can be "certain" that person knows something is if you already know it yourself.
Absolutely not.

Ex. You see video footage of a guy picking up a note that you believe has valuable intel. He reads and then burns it. You know he saw the contents, but he and the person who wrote it are the only 2 people who know for sure what it contained.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 09:43 PM
 
For all you know, the note contains his mother's recipe for gluten-free chimichangas.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 09:43 PM
 
What about a password to a laptop?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Absolutely not.

Ex. You see video footage of a guy picking up a note that you believe has valuable intel. He reads and then burns it. You know he saw the contents, but he and the person who wrote it are the only 2 people who know for sure what it contained.
Allow me to clarify. In this scenario you already know for yourself that he saw the paper. What you don't know is what was written on it. So torturing him to get him to admit he saw the paper would be pointless. And torturing him to get him to tell you what was written on it may very well yield misinformation.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 10:30 PM
 
I ♥ Tortule

I flom China.

-t
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 01:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What about a password to a laptop?
Lets assume torture is not used, the password is not obtained, lives are lost subsequently, and when the laptop is finally unlocked, it became evident that the information could have saved those lives? Would *not* using torture to obtain the password be considered a "moral" or "immoral" decision at that point?

So far my contribution to this thread has been regarding the notion of "absolute" morality. I am of the general persuasion that nothing is absolute. Edge cases exist, and choosing consistency could actually be the immoral choice IMHO.

I dont know if any of you are familiar with the Harvard University course "Justice" by Michael Sandel. The entire lecture series is available online for free, and i highly recommend it. Here's the first lecture...

What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"


(Here's the entire lecture series: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? - Michael Sandel (Harvard University) )

Cheers
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jul 1, 2016 at 02:06 AM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 09:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Lets assume torture is not used, the password is not obtained, lives are lost subsequently, and when the laptop is finally unlocked, it became evident that the information could have saved those lives? Would *not* using torture to obtain the password be considered a "moral" or "immoral" decision at that point?

So far my contribution to this thread has been regarding the notion of "absolute" morality. I am of the general persuasion that nothing is absolute. Edge cases exist, and choosing consistency could actually be the immoral choice IMHO.

I dont know if any of you are familiar with the Harvard University course "Justice" by Michael Sandel. The entire lecture series is available online for free, and i highly recommend it. Here's the first lecture...

What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"


(Here's the entire lecture series: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? - Michael Sandel (Harvard University) )

Cheers
As I said earlier. You can't really justify it to save one life, you can't not justify it to save 100.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I ♥ Tortule

I flom China.

-t
Reportled!
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Lets assume torture is not used, the password is not obtained, lives are lost subsequently, and when the laptop is finally unlocked, it became evident that the information could have saved those lives? Would *not* using torture to obtain the password be considered a "moral" or "immoral" decision at that point?
OK! OK! I GIVE UP! THE PASSWORD IS 123456

<cia tries that, it doesn't work, applies more electrodes>

THAT DIDN'T WORK? I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT WE HAD TO CHANGE IT TO 8 CHARACTERS WITH A NUMBER AND A SPECIAL SYMBOL, IT'S 123456!z PLEASE DON'T HURT ME ANY MORE

<nope, more electrodes>

AAAGGHHHH I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT DIDN'T WORK, AGGGGHHH, OH YEAH, AKMED SAID WE HAD TO USE 16 CHARACTERS NOW... AGGHHHH .... TRY [email protected]ück1t!

<dies>
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 10:27 AM
 
@andi
So you pick the morally "consistent" route. Got it.

Might I suggest you watch that lecture i've linked above. It's not as boring as it might seem, in fact it's very interactive with the students. You don't even need to watch through the entire thing to get to a conclusion. (Spolier: There is no "conclusion")
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
OK! OK! I GIVE UP! THE PASSWORD IS 123456

<cia tries that, it doesn't work, applies more electrodes>

THAT DIDN'T WORK? I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT WE HAD TO CHANGE IT TO 8 CHARACTERS WITH A NUMBER AND A SPECIAL SYMBOL, IT'S 123456!z PLEASE DON'T HURT ME ANY MORE

<nope, more electrodes>

AAAGGHHHH I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT DIDN'T WORK, AGGGGHHH, OH YEAH, AKMED SAID WE HAD TO USE 16 CHARACTERS NOW... AGGHHHH .... TRY [email protected]ück1t!

<dies>
<paddles... CLEAR!>

Okay... let's start this again from the top.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
For all you know, the note contains his mother's recipe for gluten-free chimichangas.
Must be a pretty bad (or amazing) recipe if he took the time, right then, to burn it...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Allow me to clarify. In this scenario you already know for yourself that he saw the paper. What you don't know is what was written on it. So torturing him to get him to admit he saw the paper would be pointless. And torturing him to get him to tell you what was written on it may very well yield misinformation.
There's no data to support that. What we DO have data for supports that fishing expeditions don't work. They're a horrible waste of time and resources. (Not to mention the moral issues.) However, if you know the person has something and it's a matter of life or death that you get it, then there may not be an alternative. IOW, torture should be a very rare thing, much more than it is now, but shouldn't be shelved entirely, as a last resort in the face of imminent threat.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2016, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There's no data to support that. What we DO have data for supports that fishing expeditions don't work. They're a horrible waste of time and resources. (Not to mention the moral issues.) However, if you know the person has something and it's a matter of life or death that you get it, then there may not be an alternative. IOW, torture should be a very rare thing, much more than it is now, but shouldn't be shelved entirely, as a last resort in the face of imminent threat.
I basically think the only solution is to make it illegal, and have the torturer need to prove the extenuating circumstances to a judge.

I've mentioned this cartoon before...

Cop 1: OMG! A nuclear bomb is about to go off an kill a million people, but this baby has swallowed the deactivation code! What do we do?

Cop 2: Let them die I guess... there's no law which lets us tear open an infant.

It's the most extreme of extreme examples, but I feel it demonstrates the idea just because all agree something should be done in a scenario does not mean it needs to be legal.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2016, 01:19 AM
 
That's essentially how it works now, FAIAP. We signed a treaty making it illegal, we simply do it anyway (likely more than we should).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,