Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BBC News

Danielle Pletka is a vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank in tune with the politics of the Bush administration.

"I'm not a big fan of torture. Unfortunately, there are times in war when it is necessary to do things in a way that is absolutely and completely abhorrent to most good, decent people," she told the BBC.

"I don't want to say that the United States has engaged routinely in such practices, because I don't think that it is routine by any standard.

"But that said, if it is absolutely imperative to find something out at that moment, then it is imperative to find something out at that moment, and Club Med is not the place to do it."

Whether or not the US is involved in torture is not the point of this thread. The practices of other countries are not either. This thread is about the ethics of torture. Obviously, there is the practical aspect that torture often provides bad information. But what about the ethics? If, in a situation such as Danielle Pletka raised, where information is needed now and the lives of innocent people are at stake, should the use of torture be permitted?

[Butterbeer]

permitted by whom?

[Lief Erikson]

Governments.

[Valandil]

I'm more of a "Means shape the Ends" person than a "Ends justify the Means" person, so I would say Never.

Those who think to gain something at the expense of what they truly think is right... seem more likely to lose what they think they have.

I believe it's illusional to think that by torture one can achieve a greater good.

[Earniel]

Torture? A big fat NO.

For one, I have huge doubts whether one can be sure that a confession or info given under torture is correct. In the end people will want to tell anything to make it stop. The idea of torture to gain intel or confessions always makes me immediately think of the witch-trails. Fat lot of good that that sort of torture do.

Not to mention that torture creates more resentment among your enemies and will make it harder to make peace later. It's one thing to make peace with someone who has been killing your civilians and soldiers. It is quite another to make peace with someone who has been torturing and dehumanising your people. Torture destroys more than IMO it can ever gain.

IMO, torture is that barbaric and something that should squarely reside in our past. People can always tell you lies, torture is not going to change that. You only lose your humanity while practising it. And I'm not sure if any info you can gather will be worth that.

Secondly, I think it is an utterly inacceptable practise if we have the nerve to call ourself civilised people. In the western world, we moved past the age of barbarianism, I may hope. And now we willfully return there? No, no, no, that will not do. A good number of countries have signed treaties against torture, if we consider ourselves human beings, I expect we hold that promise. Because 'the enemy is doing it' is no excuse. If we cannot even hold the promise not to use torture, seriously, what claim can we lay on the word "civilised"?

(Apologies if my post came over a bit too strongly or aggresively, but this is a topic about which I have very strong feelings.)

[brownjenkins]

never

and i think Eärniel laid out all the reasons very well

[Insidious Rex]

Yes well spoken Earniel. There is never a time when torture is a useful tool. And we are the worlds biggest hypocrites for decrying how uncivilized torture is and then turning around and quietly passing people we want tortured off to torture camps in other countries. You cant have it both ways.

[Jonathan]

Torture strips a person of his/her human dignity. It must never be allowed.

[Lotesse]

I can't believe this is even a question anybody would ever think about debating. NO, torture is disgusting, and is NEVER, never, NEVER right, NO - MATTER - WHAT. EVER. EVER.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I'm more of a "Means shape the Ends" person than a "Ends justify the Means" person, so I would say Never.

Okay, but let's think about the implications of that statement. War is a very, very ugly means to a certain end. Yet Jesus never condemned war outright. Gandhi never condemned war either. Violence in defensive warfare is an obvious and horrible means that has the purpose of defending lives- just as "defensive" torture of terrorists would.

By the way, everyone, I'm not taking a side on this issue. My opinions are not firmly established on this matter yet, one way or the other. Although that may seem extremely immoral of me, I feel a need to work my way through some of these ethical issues. I'm simply interested in playing devil's advocate here for a while, in order the better to understand this matter through the ensuing discussion.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Torture strips a person of his/her human dignity. It must never be allowed.

Does not life imprisonment strip a person of his or her human dignity? By the way, frankly I would prefer to be executed than imprisoned for life. To me, the idea of being imprisoned for life is unbearable, though I don't know whether it should be permitted. Being given a ticket for parking inappropriately can be embarressing to my human dignity, but that doesn't make parking tickets bad.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

For one, I have huge doubts whether one can be sure that a confession or info given under torture is correct. In the end people will want to tell anything to make it stop. The idea of torture to gain intel or confessions always makes me immediately think of the witch-trails. Fat lot of good that that sort of torture do.

Not to mention that torture creates more resentment among your enemies and will make it harder to make peace later. It's one thing to make peace with someone who has been killing your civilians and soldiers. It is quite another to make peace with someone who has been torturing and dehumanising your people. Torture destroys more than IMO it can ever gain.

These are technical reasons for not using torture, rather than ethical.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

IMO, torture is that barbaric and something that should squarely reside in our past. People can always tell you lies, torture is not going to change that. You only lose your humanity while practising it. And I'm not sure if any info you can gather will be worth that.

The lie telling point is, again, technical. The idea that one can lose one's humanity doing it is definitely true, I think. Very definitely true. But does this always happen? Some people in war lose their humanity also. Others do not.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Secondly, I think it is an utterly inacceptable practise if we have the nerve to call ourself civilised people. In the western world, we moved past the age of barbarianism, I may hope. And now we willfully return there? No, no, no, that will not do. A good number of countries have signed treaties against torture, if we consider ourselves human beings, I expect we hold that promise. Because 'the enemy is doing it' is no excuse.

Definitely not. I agree about that, for sure.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

If we cannot even hold the promise not to use torture, seriously, what claim can we lay on the word "civilised"?

(Apologies if my post came over a bit too strongly or aggresively, but this is a topic about which I have very strong feelings.)

No worries.

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, Jonathon, I actually don't believe that torture does strip the victim of his or her human dignity. It definitely can, however, strip the torturer of his or her human dignity. When I read the account of Jesus' torment before the crucifixion, or when I watch Mel Gibson's "The Passion", my impression is that the torturers rather than the victim lost all human dignity.

On the other hand, I have seen other films in which a good cop unwillingly tortures a villain, because they need the information now, and an innocent life is at stake. I would like to watch those movies with some of you, to see what your reaction is. How many of you have seen . . . om . . . Tom Clancy's . . . uh . . . (looks up the title) "Patriot Games"? Or the Rupert Everet new Sherlock Holmes movie? Sure, they are just films, but the scenario they present is realistic. In one of Robert Jordan's books, the main character tortures an opponent because innocent lives are at stake. The character then has an interesting conversation with another individual, and the perspective that came out of that dialogue was, "if one enjoys the violence, it is time to stop." Might that be the case with both war and torture?

These are fiction accounts I'm citing, I know, and I assure you, I don't form my judgment on a matter such as this from watching movies. However, they are interesting and can cause one to really think about these matters.

[Elanor]

I'm not sure if I can say that it should absolutely NEVER be used, because there's an exception to every rule and there might possibly be a situation in wartime or organized crime where that is the only option. But I am certainly against it in principle. I think that (if possible) every other option should be attempted before one resorts to torture. There are different types of torture, too, just as there are different types of abuse.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay, but let's think about the implications of that statement. War is a very, very ugly means to a certain end. Yet Jesus never condemned war outright. Gandhi never condemned war either. Violence in defensive warfare is an obvious and horrible means that has the purpose of defending lives- just as "defensive" torture of terrorists would.

never condemned war?

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons and daughters of God." is a pretty strong statement... i'm sure you know biblical text better than i do, but i can't think of any point where jesus says war is ever justified... and absence of such a statement is condemnation by default in light of all his other teachings

as for ghandi, a quote that is quite relavent even today:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I'm more of a "Means shape the Ends" person than a "Ends justify the Means" person, so I would say Never.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

In the end people will want to tell anything to make it stop.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Because 'the enemy is doing it' is no excuse. If we cannot even hold the promise not to use torture, seriously, what claim can we lay on the word "civilised"?

Hear hear (x3)

Jesus and Gandhi never condemned insider dealing, stem cell research or cheating at poker either. If looking to philosophy as a basis, one has to adhere to the spirit, not the letter of the law.

Nice quotes, BJ.

EDIt: just wanted to add an appreciation to Lief for bringing this up. It is being done, in our name, as we discuss this.

[littleadanel]

*takes long deep breath to encourage herself before posting in such a serious topic, hoping she would be able to get her thoughts through*

Gaffer, basically I wanted to quote the same sentences you did... so all I can say is

Word!

to those quotes. And Word! for Lief bringing this up.

The NO in my mind has always been obvious, but became even stronger after our history teacher took us to an exhibition called the House of Terrors, in 4th grade high school... I'd better quote from their website, about the building itself and its brief history...

The building

The block which includes Andrássy street 60 was built in 1880 according to the plans of the architect Adolf Feszty, who originally planned it as a mansion. The facade of this neo-renaissance building at the corner of Andrássy and Csengery streets did not change for decades. But the owners did.

Until 1936 the house was the property of the Perlmutter family.

From the beginning of 1937, the Hungarian ultra-right party, the Arrow Cross Party, rented more and more space in the house. In 1940 they took possession of the whole building and made it their headquarters. The party´s leader, Ferenc Szálasi named the building "The House of Loyalty". In the autumn of 1944, when the Hungarian Nazis came to power, the basement was used as a prison.

As Budapest rid itself of German rule and was occupied by the Soviets, the communist-led Political Police claimed the house in February 1945, and created a prison labyrinth by joining the cellars of the block. The State Security Police possessed the building until 1956. After they moved out the house was renovated, erasing all traces of its past. Andrassy 60 then became the headquarters of several firms and offices. In the 1970´s, the basement where hundreds, perhaps thousands of people were tortured, was used as a club for young communists.

Oh! and another thing caught my eye among the posts...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

... my impression is that the torturers rather than the victim lost all human dignity.

The torturers surely did, I agree. But the tortured people lost much of it, too, IMO... torture's point is to do this, to bereave people from their human dignity to weaken them.

(Look here, if you want to... the exhibition's website, about the prisons.)

[The Gaffer]

Interesting post.

I remember a documentary on how you train torturers. The first step in is to torture them. To equip someone to strip people of their dignity you first have to strip them of their dignity.

Where does this leave people who condone torture?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

These are technical reasons for not using torture, rather than ethical.

And technical reasons dont count? The fact that torture doesnt work well isnt a good reason NOT to torture? I think that combined with the ethical reasons make it absolutely absurd or simply pathological to consider it.

How many of you have seen . . . om . . . Tom Clancy's . . . uh . . . (looks up the title) "Patriot Games"? Or the Rupert Everet new Sherlock Holmes movie? Sure, they are just films, but the scenario they present is realistic. In one of Robert Jordan's books, the main character tortures an opponent because innocent lives are at stake.

I believe the classic scenario involving torture is that we have a terrorist who knows the location of a nuclear bomb thats going to go off in a matter of hours. Do we torture him to get information to hopefully save countless lives? And the answer is no. We dont. Because we dont need to. Here is a case where we look to technology to take us out of the dark age approach to information gathering... There is ALWAYS a better way. Always.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Does not life imprisonment strip a person of his or her human dignity? By the way, frankly I would prefer to be executed than imprisoned for life. To me, the idea of being imprisoned for life is unbearable, though I don't know whether it should be permitted. Being given a ticket for parking inappropriately can be embarressing to my human dignity, but that doesn't make parking tickets bad.

Not sure what this has to do with torture. In imprisonment you could still live a decent life. And if you're executed, well at least you don't have to suffer physically (hopefully!).
Would you rather be tortured than imprisoned for life? Would you rather be tortured than executed?
Personally I'm against both the death penalty and life imprisonment (ie imprisonment without any chance of getting your sentence reduced), but I find torture far far worse than both of them. Torture violates your dignity a lot more than the other two, imo.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

By the way, Jonathon, I actually don't believe that torture does strip the victim of his or her human dignity. It definitely can, however, strip the torturer of his or her human dignity. When I read the account of Jesus' torment before the crucifixion, or when I watch Mel Gibson's "The Passion", my impression is that the torturers rather than the victim lost all human dignity.

I think torture definitely takes human dignity away from the victim. You have a human being who you're treating like an animal. You kind of deprive the victim of their humanity the second you stop treating them like you would other humans.

[rohirrim TR]

the effectiveness of torture is fairly unproven anyway, i mean people going under true torture (as in saddam style torture, not being forced to listen to britney spears torture) would say anything to make it stop, your intel probably wouldn't be that good, certainly wouldn't work in the "ticking bomb" scenario.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay . . . forgive me if I don't have time to respond to everyone.

Insidious Rex, yes, technical reasons are certainly reasons not to torture. However, my purpose in this thread (perhaps not made clear in the title, though certainly in my opening statements in the thread) is to discuss the ethical issues.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

EDIt: just wanted to add an appreciation to Lief for bringing this up. It is being done, in our name, as we discuss this.

The debate over US policy certainly is a good reason to discuss torture here, though once again, I'd rather avoid in this thread a discussion of specific countries and whether or not they practice torture. I'd prefer to stick to the ethical issues, in this thread. It's a broad topic, you know .

Originally Posted by Jonathon

I think torture definitely takes human dignity away from the victim. You have a human being who you're treating like an animal. You kind of deprive the victim of their humanity the second you stop treating them like you would other humans.

The fact that you're treating them like an animal does not make them an animal- it makes you an animal. There are spectacular examples available to us from history and modern times. In one of my college classes in real life, I have about a half dozen Vietnamese war veterans who were imprisoned for about a dozen years each and tortured. They are modest, humble, kind gentlemen. Other examples I have less contact with personally include many reports I've heard of Christians in China and other parts of the world. Some of them have been tortured, and it makes them the best of people. Suffering can make or break people. Whereas some become like crazy animals, other people are transformed into individuals whose extreme goodness takes your breath away. These are the most dignified of human beings- during and after the torture.

I read one account from Pliny the Younger, as he described his efforts in torturing Christians. He talked about them as terrible animals, people who stood firm by their beliefs. To me, those Christians were incredibly dignified. Their response to evil proved their dignity beyond all question.

So the fact that you are treating someone like an animal does not make that person an animal- it makes you an animal.

Originally Posted by littleadenel

The torturers surely did, I agree. But the tortured people lost much of it, too, IMO... torture's point is to do this, to bereave people from their human dignity to weaken them.

That can happen, for sure. Other times though, it can transform people's personalities strongly for the better.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I believe the classic scenario involving torture is that we have a terrorist who knows the location of a nuclear bomb thats going to go off in a matter of hours. Do we torture him to get information to hopefully save countless lives? And the answer is no. We dont. Because we dont need to. Here is a case where we look to technology to take us out of the dark age approach to information gathering... There is ALWAYS a better way. Always.

Okay. So your essential response is that modern technology has made torture obsolete. That's a fine response, except that it completely ignores the ethics . . . and that's what I'm trying to talk about.


Hmm. What do you all think? Should we expand the thread to encompass the practicalities as well as the ethics? I can't play devil's advocate with the practicalities very effectively, unfortunately, because I just don't know enough.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I remember a documentary on how you train torturers. The first step in is to torture them. To equip someone to strip people of their dignity you first have to strip them of their dignity.

Where does this leave people who condone torture?

That may be one way to train torturers. There undoubtedly are others. Saddam Hussein's sons didn't need to be tortured to learn, NOT that that is how I suggest people EVER be raised. That's just one example that torturing trainee torturers is not the only way to train torturers.

I don't know that someone has to be evil to be willing to torture. I really don't know that.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hear hear (x3)

Jesus and Gandhi never condemned insider dealing, stem cell research or cheating at poker either. If looking to philosophy as a basis, one has to adhere to the spirit, not the letter of the law.

Stem cell research is actually condemned in the Psalms of David, though granted, not necessarily in the words of Jesus. Cheating is something he spoke about, I believe. John the Baptist certainly did- I think Jesus did also. If not Jesus, certainly Jesus' early followers in the Epistles.

You're seeking to mention things that are exclusively modern examples, purposely, but I don't see why you're doing so. War was a current issue to both Jesus and Gandhi.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins[/QUOTE

never condemned war?

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons and daughters of God." is a pretty strong statement... i'm sure you know biblical text better than i do, but i can't think of any point where jesus says war is ever justified... and absence of such a statement is condemnation by default in light of all his other teachings

as for ghandi, a quote that is quite relavent even today:

Gandhi also said that he would be willing to do his duty in fighting for the defense of his country, in time of war.

It is evident from many of his words that Jesus believed he was God, the same God as was present throughout the Old Testament. God as seen in the Old Testament undoubtedly believed that war could at times be necessary. Jesus' close followers believed that war could at times be just. They believed that Jesus himself would return from heaven to lead a violent war against the Antichrist and the sinful people of the Earth (see Revelation). That we have should seek peace does not mean that we are to never fight.

Originally Posted by Elanor

I'm not sure if I can say that it should absolutely NEVER be used, because there's an exception to every rule and there might possibly be a situation in wartime or organized crime where that is the only option. But I am certainly against it in principle. I think that (if possible) every other option should be attempted before one resorts to torture. There are different types of torture, too, just as there are different types of abuse.

That is the other perspective, the "sometimes" perspective. You're a bold lady to speak that opinion here . I'm still uncertain, myself. How would you justify the occasional torture, ethically? I'm arguing that it might be ethically justified as an act of war, and am waiting for a response.