In what circumstances would you say torture becomes justifiable?

[AgentZigzag]

I watched Unthinkable last night, and it's one of those films you keep thinking about afterwards.

It had the scrumptious <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=www.filmshaft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/michael-sheen.jpg&imgrefurl=www.filmshaft.com/michael-sheen-on-new-moon/&usg=__5lKBsXhekLebPIJcaD-nfIGFIOk=&h=238&w=250&sz=15&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=qA3bfgVzWz8sPM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=145&ei=32N3TYnMGsSs8APe6LWgDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmichael%2Bsheen%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1146%26bih%3D696%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=350&vpy=117&dur=3585&hovh=190&hovw=200&tx=108&ty=130&oei=wGN3TZiiKM25hAev7YmaBg&page=1&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michael Sheen (I would) playing a terrorist who threatened to set off three nuclear bombs in US cities, and then let himself be caught by the authorities, primarily because he knew they'd torture him and this would prove his point about how crap 'we' are.

The example used in the film was that if they didn't get the info from Michael Sheens character 10 million people would die, plus the associated economic, genetic, environmental and social impact that goes with a nuclear attack.

If there was proof that this was at stake, wouldn't a government have an obligation to get the information from a person who chose to behave in that way?

I think 99% of people would say torture should never be used (with the 1% perhaps being people who use violence themselves?) me included, I used to write letters for Amnesty Internationals Urgent Action group, so I'm not coming at this believing torture is OK.

Having said that, in reality the world has its fair share of sinister, dark people who would destroy the way we choose to live given half a chance.

They started off using finger nails, teeth, electricity and water to break him, then his wife, and thankfully stopped at the point when his children were brought in before anything was done to them.

But like most things we think of as wrong, is it possible that although we know torture is wrong, that there are some circumstances where it's use might possibly be justifiable?

How would you measure the point where the ends would justify the means though?

But if you think it's not acceptable at any level, for any reason, how would you solve the dilemma described above? Appealing to the persons better nature is time consuming and may not work, would you just let 10 million people die for the sake of the values you hold?

NEVER. My dggf was tortured by the SS:(

Nothing justifies this in a civilised society

That's a tough one. I think torture is abhorrent however if someone had taken a loved one of mine, I wouldn't be able to say that I wouldn't resort to torture of the perpetrator to find out where my loved one was.

Mavis - sorry about your dggf :(

However, I do think that in the above scenario it is acceptable and that filters quite a long way down for me. The safety of many over the comfort of one (of course you'd have to be pretty bloody sure they knew what you needed to find out),

These circumstances. Scroll about an inch down the page until you come to 'Mercy and Pity'.

I'd have no problem taking those responsible and personally throwing them in a pot of boiling oil, no problem at all.

And yes, for the sake of genuine national security and the lives of innocents, I would torture those who refused to tell as in the OP too.

(Disclaimer: I have never claimed to be nice).

Not even if that civilised society was at risk of being shattered Mavis?

Of course in your case, that torture is not, and never was, justifiable.

Vallhala, personally, I think being nice is overrated anyway.

Depends where 'robust questioning' stops and 'torture' starts, I'd say. Life isn't a movie with nice clean story-endings. There is a long history of people who were unwilling to confess in the face of extreme torture. Others think dying for their cause is the most satisfactory outcome.... and if they don't value life, torture has no impact. Others will say anything in order to stop the pain. So it's not exactly a guaranteed method of getting good information - even if 10 million lives are at stake.

Not only not acceptable but not particularly reliable. Worst of both worlds.

NEVER under any circumstances - it has been proven not to work so it's utterly pointless unless you're a sadistic fucker and want some sort of half-assed revenge dressed up as 'getting information'.

It's bullshit - torture does not work.

I hope so frgr, or else I'm doomed, aren't I? :o

In an extreme circumstance like that, sure, I would say torture one criminal who unreservedly confessed to the crime (before torture started!) is better than the death of millions.

But torture is rarely done in those circumstances, it's normally more about bullying and humiliating vulnerable people who have no access to outside support organisations or legal advice, whose guilt is by no means proven and who will end up giving any type of useless information out of pure despair.

Is the torture REALLY going to prevent him blowing up the bombs? Or will he do it any way once he has show how corrupt people really are (as if we didn't know already).

never.

1. Torture is usually about revenge
2. People will say anything to make it stop, so hardly a reliable source of information anyway.

If the "services" were better funded, we might not need to use torture, because we'd know everything anyway.

Life isn't a film script.

I'd say never.

Not least because it doesn't work - people may say anything just to get it to stop: that information isn't necessarily true. Working from single-source information "obtained under duress" is very risky.

when the children have eaten my last special biscuit i was saving!

on a more serious note, torture is unacceptable IMO, on every level and water-boarding stands out in my mind as being particularly upsetting (to me ) to nearly drown someone (whilst watching ) and then bring them back from the brink only to do it again and again, utterly inhumane!

I don't think torture is ever justifiable in a civilised society.

It is also proven not to work. In the film you describe (I have not seen it) the reason for the setting of the bomb is the torture itself, so the Michael Sheen character is already 'prepared' to withstand what tortue he suffers. I have read that under torture a lot of sufferers are able to withstand higher amounts of pain than normal due to a combination of adrenalin and the feeling of the righteousness of their cause. So lots of sufferers do not confess anything useful anyway.

I think the sign of a civilised society is the level of humanity with which it treats its prisoners. That includes political prisoners who have information which you would like to have.

It is not acceptable under any circumsstance.

I agree with Mavis and Prolesworth - if we indulge in torture then we have ourselves ruined our society by jettisoning one of the most fundament aspects of the rule of law.

I watched the film aswell OP, and i have thought about it since to.
I honestly don't have a firm answer, i found it hard to take what happened to the wife, she was all in all, innocent, so that to me was incomprehensable.
But the story that 'H' told about his wife etc, made me see how someone/people could justify doing that.
But there we go, still no solid feelings on the matter.

And in the film as I understand it, to torture the man would be completely pointless, as that is exactly what he wants. Why play into his hands, when it could all be a bluff anyway (apols. agentzig if this was covered in the film anyway).

I suppose a tricky one given that i believe there are some really truly evil people,on both sides of the equation but to really debase another human being?I am a member of Amnesty[poncy middle class emoticon]I dunno.

I can think of plenty of examples that we do not live in a civilised society proles, the way some people treat their children is beyond disgusting.

In the film he would be giving them verifiable information, so lying would only get him a break before the torture resumed.

Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity from The Matrix) played an interesting character who was dead against torture in the beginning, and you watched the process of her being essentially brutalised, until she became a torturer herself.

I think the moral of the film was that anyone can easily be shaped to become a torturer given the right set of circumstances/experiences (a bit Milgram in that sense).

i was under the impression that torture was a notoriously ineffective method of getting information, so quite aside from the fact that it isn't very nice (!) I'd give it a thumbs down.

The ending of the film demonstrates a clear message don't you think OP?
It wasn't effective, all that pain.
If someone truely believes in their cause and actions, they will find a way.