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?

I think that's what I'm trying to get at wheredidyou, I fully understand it's wrong, so is killing someone but it's justifiable if it's in self defence.

I agree the death penalty is also wrong, very wrong, but that doesn't stop me thinking that in some circumstances the actions of a person can be so unnaturally deviant that I could understand if their lives were taken away from them as a punishment.

Torture is never justifiable.

It also doesn't produce accurate results, so rather pointless.

I get where people are coming from when they see the death penalty as some form of retribution for suffering caused. However, there are reports that often victims relatives are not helped by the execution of the culprit as it does not give them the closure that they may be hoping for.

Also the use of execution and torture diminish us all as a society.

Anyone who hurt or tortured my kids had better pray the police find them before I do.

Anything else I dont care about.

I'm not sure you can say whether torture is effective or not wheredidyou because it's so hard to measure.

It's not something that's shouted about, so cases where it has worked aren't heard of.

It goes against everything we value in this day and age, but that's not the same as saying it definately, beyond all doubt doesn't work.

(I would like to point out again that I'm not in any way advocating torture on any level)

And back to your question if you are using torture to defend a society where torture is an acknowledged tool of government and investigation, and those 10 million people are aware of the torture that is being done on their behalf because as a society they have elected personnel who use it and politicians who approve it.Are those citizens any different to the person actually performing the torture and no different to the terrorist.

So does a society that uses torture and possibly execution as tools of government deserve to survive?

My stepfather was in Bosnia and what he saw caused him to have a serious nervous breakdown. My ExP was in Sangin and the horrendous things that the locals did to their own families (which could be seen as torture) so that they could claim compensation from the allied forces, completely messed him up.

I do think that when you see what could be prevented by it then you can alter your perspective. I abhor the idea of torture, but I do see that it does have it's place in some circumstances. I would define controlled torture as that which takes place in a military (for example) situation as a means to prevent further harm to others. Torture for the sake of senseless harm to another is unacceptable - maiming a person because they are of a different religion/tribe is unacceptable and totally unjustifiable

Oh yeah, the old 'of course it works but we can't possibly prove it because it's a secret' defence. What a lame argument.

'So does a society that uses torture and possibly execution as tools of government deserve to survive?'

That's got at what I was trying to say earlier, that if people aren't taking their govts to task when they know it's going on, then they're also responsible and complicit in that torture.

But just because things happen that are wrong or evil, I don't think they outweigh all the compassionate and philanthropic actions that constantly take place, so I think it does deserve to survive, if only for the reason that we've recognised it's wrong?

Surely the answer is never? Is this really debatable?

I would like to say again edam that I'm not arguing the case for torture, and because it's not something I know a huge amount about I couldn't say whether it's a lame or well trotted out argument or not.

It is to me 34go, and possibly for the other posters who've debated it this afternoon?

Never.

It might sometimes be understandable (grief frenzy revenge) but it's never justifiable

I've read the whole thread, and enjoyed it Agent but still, for humanity, the answer should be 'never'

No torture, talk about bad Karma!

I would like to think this would be the case, but you have to account for the dark side human nature 34 when it compels people to do unspeakable acts on both sides.

It definately goes on, I don't like to think about it going on, meaning there's a mismatch between the two, and I think it's important to talk about why people would believe it was necessary instead of brushing it off as wrong and nothing to do with me.

OK, question for all those saying that torture is never ever acceptable no matter what.

What you be prepared to lose you children in a terrorist atrocity of the ticking bomb scenario in the film, that could have been prevented by the use of torture of the terrorists?

Never.

Torture is abhorrent.

Add to that the fact that the majority of people facing torture in this world do so not because they hold the key to some secret hollywood style nuclear bomb but instead because they have an opinion contrary to their state or are 'politically misaligned' or are gay or are the wrong ethnic group or are in the wrong place at the wrong time or are just... Normal people.

Torture is cruel, inhumane and never acceptable.

A timely link...
Amnesty Stop Torture Campaign

I agree that the example used is very cut and dried slur, and the majority of torture happens behind closed doors to ordinary folk where the world can't see.

But that's the point of the example, that if you are watching the film thinking 'Get the fucker he fucking deserves it' then you're going along with torture in some circumstances.

If there's just one case where torture would be acceptable (and on this thread that seems to be involving harm to our children) then you've crossed the boundary into agreeing with torture.

That to me is worrying, both in what I see in myself, and what I see in other people when they disagree with torture but don't do anything about it or propose an alternative.

I understand that and I confess I haven't seen the film (though it sounds v good and I'll make the effort now!)

I suppose it is similar to the death penalty arguments of 'not agreeing with the death penalty but if it was someone who'd murdered your child then hell, all principles out the window'?

The key for me is about what becomes state sanctioned. Individuals committing murder or torture because of their emotional state or because they are cruel is very different.

I believe there is no justification for state sanctioned torture (or death penalty). And yes, I mean not even to potentially save others through gaining information.

I recognise that my opinion isn't without criticism but I hold to it because I think it's unrealistic to separate the perpetrators of torture from the principle. Someone, somewhere, has to decide which cases warrant torture. And I don't think any one in this world is capable of deciding that in a way that I would have confidence in.

You raise a very compelling point for discussion.

It seem that this scenario is like the old joke where a business man asks a woman if she will sleep with him for a million pounds, she says she will sleep with him for that. he then offers her £500 for the night. She objects saying what did he think she was. the business man then replies that he'd just established what she was he was now negotiating the price

Good analogy wheredidyou, if you accept one case, you accept all cases.

I think the level of certainty you would need that the person knew the information you wanted and that finding that information would result in less harm than the torture is so high as to be pretty much impossible to achieve in practice.

You would also need trained torturers, ready to act. What an abhorrent thought.

Wheredidyou I don't like that joke sorry. ack I'm not sure I can adequately articulate why. I think it is because it assumes that by accepting some 'terms' for sex opens a woman up to being able to be propositioned in a very different ways for sex. Anyway, not the point!

I think it could be a good analogy except it is flawed because it involves choice on the part of the participant. It's much easier to take decisions when it is oneself.

Do you endorse torture? No.

Would you suffer torture to save your children? Yes.

Would you carry out torturous acts to save your children? ..... maybe? One hopes not but I understand I cannot comprehend the emotions involved.

Would you sanction others to carry out torture on your behalf if they thought it would protect your children?.... No.