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?

Films aren't all that great away to learn about human behaviour. Hate to break it to you but they make a lot of it up. Real life MI5 officers say that Spooks is great entertainment but nothing like the real thing. And then we get a 7/7 type situation, think all our officers are kitted up like the make-believe team on the telly, and are very disappointed to discover it's not actually that simple.

What interests me more is at what point do you say"stop,that is enough".I was reading about some famous experiment (can't remember researchers name) where they made people give imaginary (but not actually to subject) electric shocks up to the level of killing someone.Amazing how many people deferred it was all about questionning authority.

Personally I don't give a toss about the idea that if we torture someone then as a society we stop being civilised etc. Bollocks.

If someone is to bomb other people then he/she gives up their right to any civility.

HOWEVER......torture is a very inefficient tool and people will admit anything to make the pain stop. So with that in mind and that alone, I would say no.

Not under any circumstances would I hope someone be tortured or do it myself. It is barbaric and unreliable. I think I would confess to just about anythink if hurt enough and do not suppose I am the only one who would.

As well, if you have enough proof to know to which point secutity/economy... is threatened you should have enough information to get on without torturing anyone anyway I imagine.

Thanks:)

I think the grey areas are 'interesting' if that's the right word.

The police use interrogation tactics and are very careful not to use undue force, but what about sleep deprivation? (something very close to most mums hearts ) Shouting and unrepenting questioning? Or white noise? Stress positions? What is acceptable to use if peoples lives are at stake?

I'm glad someone else saw it OTTM, I don't have firm answers either, but I think it's not as cut and dried as we'd like to think, and that's a bit unnerving.

Mavis- Milgram

I saw a copy of that experiment somewhere recently and people havent changed at all

"What is acceptable to use if peoples lives are at stake?"

Torture does not makes people lives less at risk as information obtained under torture is not necessarely going to help if lies are said so to make the torture stop.

chil, liar

Made up or not, it was an interesting and valid exploration testing the extent to which a person could be pushed to the brink of their pain threshold, and what impact that might have on the torturers.

If the person torturing you gave you a very real threat to harm your children in front of you gorionine would you hold out? I would.

I think the film RENDITION shows this very well, that someone would say anything under such extreme circumstance and that it often happens to those with no council or proof of charges. Actually found the film quite uncomfortable to watch knowing how bloody likely it is to be happening right now somewhere!

And I will second Valhalla, i saw pity and mercy on the site a few days ago and they broke my heart.

Never.

Other people can and will make the moral arguments but aside from that it's unreliable at best (people will say anything if you hurt them enough) and counter-productive at worst.

It can work against you in terms of gathering intelligence / information more broadly as the general public are apparently less willing to inform on their neighbours, contacts etc.. if they perceive that there's a risk that they will be tortured and abused.

If a police or security officer genuinely believes 100% that torture is going to get invaluable information out of a subject they should be prepared to defend their actions in a court of law afterwards and live with the consequences. There should be no special provision in law for torture or torturers.

If the info could be checked it would gorionine, in the film it was addresses which checked out and he was telling the truth, it's just that his threats had a sting in the tail that he didn't disclose.

i don't thinkI have the courage of ggf.he was a resistant and imprisoned for 3 years.If someone threatened my dcs i would be a gibbering wreck:(

I don't think i could administer a fatal electric shock though.

I could not do this to another human being and I could not ask someone else to do it in my name.

I am not quite sure that I would want to go so far as to say never to any degree and in any circumstances as I suspect I could be persuaded that the "good of the many" argument is a vaild one.

I think I did not express myself correctly , by lie I did not mean that if i was guiltry I would have the strength to lie. I mean the oposite, if I was innnocent I would spurt out any lie to make the pain stop. I would have given any information (even thouh I have actually not done anything) long before they needed to threaten my children I have no resistance to pain at all. This is why I am saying it is useless whatever I would say would be a lie just to stpo the torture. Actually by torturing me you would put more lives at risk (including mine) as the informations I would give would make no sense and would be of no help at all in front of a real threat.

'as the general public are apparently less willing to inform on their neighbours, contacts etc.. if they perceive that there's a risk that they will be tortured and abused'

Would you say that's strictly true? I'm thinking of countries who used secret police/informers a lot the STASI, Stalin, Nazis, and knowing the person would disappear didn't seem to stop them.

Possibly trying to deflect attention from themselves, but seemingly not caring what tortures the other person would have to endure?

i think never

Yes, I see what you mean gorionine.

The inevitablilty of innocent people getting caught up in it is a very strong argument against it, similar to the death penalty.

Hmm.

In theory I'm with those who say it's unacceptable in civilised society.

OTOH if, say, my child was kidnapped and the kidnapper wouldn't divulge their whereabouts/police didn't have any leads I would take a knife to him myself, if I could.

Without a doubt.

Obviously quite an outlandish scenario, I know, but what would the rest of you do in similar circumstances?

To all those saying torture is not justifiable under any circumstances, how about if you discard the grey area about whether or not the terrorist would tell the truth under duress.

What if the choice was black and white - if you torture the terrorist you WILL save 10 million people. If you don't 10 million people WILL die. Is is still unacceptable?

I think to stick to principles in that situation is bonkers.

I read an article today about the upcoming trials of the Guantanomo prisoners.

It is alleged some were tortured and it is known that some confessed to crimes that they could not possibly have committed. The information collected was therefore worthless in most cases.

Under torture the victim will say whatever the torturer wants to hear to make it stop.

The only thing torture does for a regime is make enemies of people who may support it and reduce it's moral authority in The World.

Guantanomo shows the other thing about torture BeenBeta, that it's not just about the torturer and the tortured, it's that there has to be a kind of culture of torture surrounding the situation.

Because most people find it abhorrent, you need people in the place where it's happening to have found their personal justification/normality to be able to stand by and watch it happening.

In the film the torturers wife had been tortured herself, and had tortured those who did it to her which enabled her to accept living with what her husband did as a job.

Making torture normal though means it's easier to use it for smaller and smaller things until it's just a routine response.

Agent Zigzag: People inform at some level in every society, liberal, fascist whatever. In the UK people spontaneously inform on their neighbours re bin regulation violation and children walking to school alone etc...

The question isn't whether it happens at all but whether it happens less or more in a society where torture is explicitly or implicitly sanctioned.

I used the word "apparently" in my original post because I haven't seen the figures to back up the argument. Several well-regarded international human rights lawyers told me this independently (I used to work in a relevant field when I was younger) but stupidly I don't remember ever following it up. I find it quite credible and may do a quick search later to see if I can find the source of the claim.

Jeanvaljean: "I think to stick to principles in that situation is bonkers." OK - do it then. But it doesn't make it morally "right" in anything but a strict utilitarian sense.

It's a fallacy that we always have a real choice between right and wrong. Sometimes all of us have to choose the "wrong" we prefer. Yes, in the situation you describe, most people probably would resort to torture. But I don't think the torturer should get off freely regardless of the outcome. They should definitely still be prosecuted afterwards. If they're genuinely a "moral" person they'll accept and live with a 20 year sentence and count it a price worth paying for the lives they saved.