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?

Slur the only thing that changes in that 'joke' is the price everything else stays the same that is the basis of the humour

They must exists mustn't they meditrina?

Just from catching SAS programs on the box shows they have these types of people, they must do so they can construct their interrogation training.

I'd feel less secure if we didn't have someone who knew something about the 'skills' involved and instead only wanted to be friends with mass murdering criminals to understand them (although understanding them is important in its own way).

There's a difference between knowing about the something to teach resistance (in controlled circumstances, with consenting trainee) and being ready and willing to actually torture.

True.

But if you know the ins and outs of it, it's only a short step to using that knowledge.

Are you sure you don't break any laws prolesworth?

If I remember correctly, the labour govt brought in over 300 new ones when they were in power.

It might be wrong and against the law, but everyone is guilty of something if you look hard enough.

Not even accidently??

I tortured DH earlier, but I won't go into details...

@ wheredid you explaining concept of humour! Yes I did notice that. you are absolutely right. The price changes. The price changes and in doing so the nature of the preposition changes no? and of course it does because otherwise there is no juxtaposition, there is no 'humour'.

Anyway, I really wasn't trying to get entangled in that particular joke I just don't liek it much and I did say I couldn't necessarily articulate why but I thought I'd have a try.

I also thought not a perfect analogy to answer Agent's point because of the concept of choice.

However, I feel oddly like I ought to say I wasn't getting at you or summink. So in case that's needed. I wasn't. I just don't like the joke all that much. mmm-kay?

But unless the person being tortured is innocent slur, it's possible they did have a smidgen of choice in the actions they took to get to that point?

I do get that that doesn't absolve the torturers of their actions though.

Only Slur has answered my question.

I'll answer my question - I would rather that some terrorist was tortured in order to prevent an attack that would otherwise kill my children.

But don't we have governments and laws to take the retrubition out of punishment.

If my child was murdered i may want to kill the culprit but it is the governments role to ensure that I don't and that a fair punishment is meted out.

Sorry but no, I don't think that the choice of committing an act that might lead to torture (as in planning a terrorist act for eg) counts as complicit choice in torture.

And I really really don't think that we can separate the act of torture from those who do it. So while we can say what would you do if you could know for certain a person about to be tortured is guilty of terrible crimes that is very different to agreeing with torture wholesale.

Do we or you personally, think that we can be certain of guilt in the case in the majority of cases of torture that actually happen in this world as opposed to in Hollywood?

Rhinestone - ("I would rather that some terrorist was tortured in order to prevent an attack that would otherwise kill my children.") - let's face it, many people would rather any random innocent stranger was tortured if we thought it would in some way save the lives of our children. Doesn't make it right though.

I'm not saying it's right; I'm just being very honest and realistic about how I would feel. It's a really really powerful film for making you confront how you REALLY feel about torture and Carrie-Ann Moss's performance is really compelling and totally believable.

However Samuel L Jackson is brilliant too. He's not a psycho, he's merely the tool by which the dirty work of torture is carried out. In some ways he's the most honest character as he is under no illusion about what he's capable of.

AgentZigZag - what did you think of the ending?

I don't take posters reminding me it's a film/hollywood reality to heart.

The film is a well constructed situation, things fit in because they want them to, it all adds up.

I'd be a bit of an idiot if I blurred film scripts with how things are in reality.

I think it was a useful baseline in looking at what different people find acceptable in extreme situations when they're under extreme duress.

In answer to your question, there are probably a very small number of times when the guilt of the victim has been established beforehand.

But in saying it's OK to torture in that situation perhaps forces you to draw a line between what's acceptable torture and what isn't which will inevitably include smaller and smaller 'fish' as legitimate targets.

That was to slur, sorry.

My response before watching the movie 'Unthinkable' was different to my response during and immediately after watching it. Before I would have said - never acceptable in any circumstances.

In my odd distorted moral code (and everybody has an odd distorted moral code - if you don't you are not being honest with yourself or not thinking very deeply), I felt the terrorist was fair game - he was no longer 'human' (and thus had forfeited any human rights) but demonic imo - and there was just the trivial issue of hundreds of thousands of lives at stake because of him ,which I think trumps some high minded liberal principle...but I very definitely baulked at the murder of his wife and the implication that his children could be used to extract a confession. In fact dh and I had a heated argument about that

I would have liked to have seen at least a mushroom cloud or something rhinestone

I think the biggest downfall of the story is that those who know how to put a nuclear bomb together are very few and far between, and would have had a really close eye kept on their movements by the authorities.

It's not something you're going to google and go unflagged.

They'd have known what he was up to before he thought of it himself.

Plus they wouldn't be standing about after they found the bomb hugging and sucking each others cocks, they'd have made sure the whole area was clear.

The dynamics in the rest of the film made up for it though.

(I'm watching it again at the min )

And indeed I am not saying torture is okay in those circumstances.

Or in any circumstances.

Sorry if I've been unclear.

I bring up Hollywood as an example of how torture can be justified by some stories by virtue of guilt I didn't bring it up as an comment on you or your opinion.

Again sorry if that was unclear.

SPOILER ALERT - DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE FILM

I think they should have kept the alternate ending where it shows the 4th bomb DID exist. Because then the debate gets really awful - is the welfare of those two children really really more important than the lives of millions? An awful question and to me, that's the 'Unthinkable' prospect of the title, not the torture of an adult terrorist who has made the choice.

I thought it was a truly excellent film and am quite astonished it hasn't received wider recognition. Think Carrie Ann Moss was much better than bloody Natalie Portman in "Black Duck" or whatever it was.

But goodness that "you don't take posters reminding you that it's a hollywood film to heart"?? No need to be defensive, I made reference to Hollywood for sound reason not as an attack - no reason not to take me to your heart

I think I took it in the same vein as chils post earlier, 'Hate to break it to you but they make a lot of it up' trying to dismiss any points made by reducing them to just being made in a film.

Rhinestone, did I misunderstand the ending? I thought the bomb unsuccessfully covered up behind them at the end, was the fourth bomb?

Did you say you've not seen the film slur?

It'd be interesting (if you could stand the nasties in it) to hear what you think after you've seen it.