Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/21/2003 11:57:15 AM EDT
I heard a question asked today, on the radio. "Would you approve of torture of another human being if you thought it could save 100 lives?"
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 11:59:15 AM EDT
If I had enough evidence that I knew he was the right guy.

I heard a cia guy saying they have alot of ways of getting info without poking peoples eyes out and that sort of thing.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:01:07 PM EDT
Yes.  But then, I'm in favor of torture if someone runs a two-stroke scooter around my neighborhood for hours on end.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:27:00 PM EDT
I would approve of torture if the freeways would average 20mph.

CW
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:34:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
I heard a question asked today, on the radio. "Would you approve of torture of another human being if you thought it could save 100 lives?"
View Quote

That depends on who the 100 lives belong to.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:39:45 PM EDT
60+ views and only 15 votes.


Interesting.....
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:43:46 PM EDT
I would, personally, because the responsibility would be [i]mine[/i].  If all the repercussions were mine, [i]alone[/i], I'd do it in a second.

However, I wouldn't condone those measures by the US armed forces.  The repercussions for every soldier who follows me are too great.  I wouldn't want any of them to suffer the fate I chose for the interrogated prisoner.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 12:56:20 PM EDT
Hell, our military wanted to crucify a Lt. Col. for firing his sidearm close to the head of an Iraqi suspected of knowing of a future attack on his men.  Loud music causing sleep deprivation is not considered torture by world standards.  Somehow, I think we’re a long way from attaching electrodes to genitalia or bamboo under the fingernails….    
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:07:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
60+ views and only 15 votes.


Interesting.....
View Quote

Too many variables to submit a vote.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:08:56 PM EDT
Refer to my sigline, and guess how I voted.he he he.....
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:09:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Railman44:
Hell, our military wanted to crucify a Lt. Col. for firing his sidearm close to the head of an Iraqi suspected of knowing of a future attack on his men.  Loud music causing sleep deprivation is not considered torture by world standards.  Somehow, I think we’re a long way from attaching electrodes to genitalia or bamboo under the fingernails….    
View Quote



Let me clarify:

I know of NO EXAMPLES of torture.

I have heard of NO EXAMPLE of torture.

I heard this question posed on the radio, and thought I would ask it here.

I am in no way accusing anyone named or unnamed of torture.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:09:51 PM EDT
Depends on the person and the circumstances.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:17:31 PM EDT
I will go out on a limb and answer the question posed with the info given. Answer to question posed. No. Hell no. I must assume the my approval would be for the .gov to do it to a civilain. (Authority figure and human figure) Hell no.

As an American, torture is not a part of my standard legal doctrine. We have laws, systems and standards, cruel and unusual punishment is not a part of that.

If you change the variables to soldiers and combat, no problem. By any means necessary.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:25:27 PM EDT
As used by dictators, we've seen that torture is a very effective method to get a person to tell you what you want to hear, especially if it isn't true.

Under torture a person will give the answers that he thinks will bring relief.  It may not be what you NEED to hear.

The methods used to wear down a persons defenses that consist of sleep deprivation and other stressors are designed to get the subject to inadvertently give up accurate information.

For that reason I say no to torture (such as what SH did to his enemies), but yes to other methods used to extract information.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:48:12 PM EDT
I said yes. Put Saddam in a room with a Plexiglass wall, & on the other side have a pig sty with oinkers running around, & a button that says open in the hands of his interrogators. I don't think a physical torture is necessary to get info from a suspect, buy in some cases it could be used on those who show extreme cruelty to their victims. I don't think it should be used on just anyone, but rather be reserved for who meet a criteria that is preestablished.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 2:12:07 PM EDT
Yes, but no to a random person to torture to save a random 100 people. But if I was in the military and was at war I would torture someone to get information to same 100 of my fellow soldgiers in a second. Also I would torture a person who was in conection with a kidnapping of a loved one or something similiar.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 7:04:11 PM EDT
I had to say no, without having more information on the reason and conditions of torture.  If you knew your enemy would rather surrender than go out fighting because you had a history of treating prisoners in a professional, consistent, and humane manner, you would be saving lives by not having to uproot them from their hiding spots.  
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 7:23:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
"Would you approve of torture of another human being if you thought it could save 100 lives?"
View Quote


If it saved even just ONE LIFE, wouldn't it be worth it?

[red]Do it for the children![/red]
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 12:48:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
60+ views and only 15 votes.


Interesting.....
View Quote


Maybe we should torture them to find out how they would vote.  [;)]

I'm all for torture.  Even if it would save only a couple of lives.  

"There are those that are willing to use violence to get what they want, and in order to stop them, the must be met with the same violence."  -Vince Flynn


I thinks it's BS that the US believes that b/c we don't torture our POW's or combatants, that other countries will follow suit.  I wonder how many lives have been lost b/c we haven't been able to "properly" question subjects.  
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 1:29:48 AM EDT
To save the lives of friends and family I would not hesitate one second. Other than that it is a judgement call but if you are a scumbag you are probably toast.
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 8:10:54 AM EDT
Very tough question, and I can't answer a simple yes or no to it.

I don't have a problem with using some "truth serum" type of injection, but I have major problems with cutting off body parts or sticking bamboo slivers into strategic locations.

Do the ends justify the means?  How is that measured?  100 lives?  20 lives?  5 lives?  How do you measure what type of person deserves torture?  An enemy combatant?  A "suspected" enemy combatant?  A terrorist?  A "suspected" terrorists?  Some simple civilian that is faithful to another country but has some information that might help ours?

It would have to be considered on a case by case basis, with extreme scrutiny.
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 8:19:25 AM EDT
I voted yes, BUT:

To find a kidnap victim who is presumably alive? Yes.

To find a body or other evidence of a completed crime? No.

To prevent a future crime of violence (e.g., a planned robbery, murder, or kidnapping)? Yes.

To identify the perpetrators of a completed crime? No.

FWIW, someone very close to me had a long and distinguished LEO career staring about the time we entered WWII. When I asked him about old-time "interview techniques," he said they were only employed when the officers were morally certain of the subject's guilt and were seeking accomplices or evidence.
Top Top