Torture what is it really?

[Kaimani]

Why? If you have captured one of a group how do you know the group will continue with the plan? If they assume you are going to be successful at getting the information then they would have to be particularly dim to continue with the plan your captive is already aware of. Who's to say he won't send you off on a wild goose chase? What are you going to do torture him till he tells you what you want to know and then torture him till he tells you what you want to know? It is pointless and counter productive, People who are tortured, in general, will either spit in your face or tell you the first thing they think of. A TV series was shown a while ago where several people were told a piece of information and then had 'mild' torture applied until the 'interrogators' were happy with the information they received. What they weren't told was that only ONE of the victims had ACTUALLY been provided with information. Result they lost the useful information in a pile of rubbish put out by the rest of the victims who said whatever they thought the captors wanted to hear to stop the torture. How is that useful or beneficial? AND you have just given the moral high ground to your enemy and provided the best propaganda they could ever hope for!!!

 

i think andy agrees in principle, as do i. but what we're saying is reason goes out the window in some situations. even if you know they're never gonna give you the info you want you would do it just to inflict pain. to use torture as an end in itself.

[Iuchi_Zien]

If a terrorist wasn't telling you what you wanted to know, would you follow your ethics that step further and torture an innocent party to save your child? A wife, a child?

 

If a terrorist wasn't telling you what you wanted to know, would you follow your ethics that step further and torture an innocent party to <POSSIBLY> save your child? A wife, a child?

[Kaimani]

If a terrorist wasn't telling you what you wanted to know, would you follow your ethics that step further and torture an innocent party to save your child? A wife, a child?

 

i can say, with no doubt at all, no. no i wouldn't.

[MC Spyda]

If a terrorist wasn't telling you what you wanted to know, would you follow your ethics that step further and torture an innocent party to save your child? A wife, a child?

 

I would have no problems in torturing an innocent party to save someone from my own family. My family is far more important than anyone else ever could be.

[Iuchi_Zien]

I would have no problems in torturing an innocent party to save someone from my own family. My family is far more important than anyone else ever could be.

 

Perfectly acceptable argument, now put the boot on the other foot. How would you respond if it was YOUR child/wife/family that was the innocent party being tortured?

[MC Spyda]

Perfectly acceptable argument, now put the boot on the other foot. How would you respond if it was YOUR child/wife/family that was the innocent party being tortured?

 

 

I think what I have just posted on a different thread is answer to this...

 

This is why the legal system isn't or shouldn't be based around emotions, it should be based upon rational thought and decisions only.

 

I would have no problems killing someone if they harmed a member of my family in a horrific way, but that is my emotions speaking, thinking rationaly I understand that it is not right.

[Kaimani]

I would have no problems in torturing an innocent party to save someone from my own family. My family is far more important than anyone else ever could be.

 

i hear you about fam. but where i come from killing an innocent means you've blooded your own. your fam becomes fair game to pay for the blood you split. it's a bad idea in that sense, also in that you never recover from that. would you say a two year old for your two year old and live to be their father again after it's all done?

[andikay]

Why? If you have captured one of a group how do you know the group will continue with the plan? If they assume you are going to be successful at getting the information then they would have to be particularly dim to continue with the plan your captive is already aware of. Who's to say he won't send you off on a wild goose chase? What are you going to do torture him till he tells you what you want to know and then torture him till he tells you what you want to know? It is pointless and counter productive, People who are tortured, in general, will either spit in your face or tell you the first thing they think of. A TV series was shown a while ago where several people were told a piece of information and then had 'mild' torture applied until the 'interrogators' were happy with the information they received. What they weren't told was that only ONE of the victims had ACTUALLY been provided with information. Result they lost the useful information in a pile of rubbish put out by the rest of the victims who said whatever they thought the captors wanted to hear to stop the torture. How is that useful or beneficial? AND you have just given the moral high ground to your enemy and provided the best propaganda they could ever hope for!!!

 

I didn’t say anything about a group, I caught the person that kidnapped my child, they refused to tell me where my child was, because they have refused to tell me what I want to know they will suffer until they do tell me. They can lie but I would soon know they are lying because my child wouldn’t be in the location they said. They could keep sending me on wild goose chases but that would mean they continue to suffer. How would they use what I did as propaganda, I have them captive and they are going nowhere or talking to anyone. Just me and them until I have my child back at which point they would be of no further use to me.

[MC Spyda]

i hear you about fam. but where i come from killing an innocent means you've blooded your own. your fam becomes fair game to pay for the blood you split. it's a bad idea in that sense, also in that you never recover from that. would you say a two year old for your two year old and live to be their father again after it's all done?

 

No matter which route you choose, it is no doubt going to affect you negatively. I see what you're saying, and obviously I don't truly know unless I am in a particular situation, but my feelings on this right now is that any innocent person would be 'fair game' to be killed in order to save a member of my own family.

[andikay]

If a terrorist wasn't telling you what you wanted to know, would you follow your ethics that step further and torture an innocent party to save your child? A wife, a child?

 

If I had very good information that a person new where a bomb had been planted even if they didn't plant it. I would use whatever means necessary to save the lives of those people that are going to be blown to bits.

For instance If I had Osama bin laden in custody I would not ask him politely what terrorist threats are planned. In the raid on his house they found documents and plans supposedly, torture could be used to confirm the information is correct. He may lie and the information he gives could be worthless but they will have lost nothing tying.