I was, in a sense, put to the question on whether or not torture was wrong. Currently, many people immediately say 'no' and don't bother justifying their response. However, I read an article that completely turned my thinking about torture on its head.
It's a long essay, written by someone with the pseudonym LeoDV (at the bottom). I would post it, but the character limit exceeds what KMC allows for a single post (and it's a pain in the rear to have to divide it up into multiple posts).
Anyway, I'm struggling with the question of whether or not torture is wrong. I'm leaning towards "it's bad, but it should be allowed". Which, in itself, disturbs me. However, what the author writes sheds a good deal of truth on torture in the Inquisition.
This leads me to ponder what exactly torture is. I feel that our society has grown...soft--perhaps--and is willing to classify things as torture that are not really torture. For instance, the use of truth serum--is that torture? Some would say yes. Some would say no. I am in the category of the latter.
Should torture be allowed, it would obviously have to impose limits that would retain the humanity of both the torturer and the tortured (though one might argue that the former has already lost his). Strict regulations would have to be imposed, and torture couldn't become the first tool of choice.
Anyway, read the article. Tell me what you think.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I think torture is needed to a certain extent. I don't want the government sticking not pokers in someones ass telling them to talk. Say you capture Osama Bin Ladens bodyguard or some shit and he knows where Bin Laden is. Things such as sleep deprivation to get him to talk is fine in my eyes. Mental torture seems a lot more reasonable to me then physical (such as tieing a guy to a chair and punching him in the face over and over).
Imo, torture is not a licit means for extracting information.
If we can' t recognize and respect the dignity and rights of each human individual, then in the end we aren' t any better than those we fight against.
I' ll read the essay now to see if and/or how it will change my stance.
And Cline put an interesting question on torture forward. What should happen after torture is used? Should those personally responsible for torture pay a price for it?
If the cause is really so great and so important that it is worth torturing a person - possibly an innocent person or possibly a guilty person who knows nothing relevant - then why isn' t it important enough for the "good guys" to risk jail time? If a person isn' t willing to sacrifice a few years in jail, then Cline doesn' t trust their willingness to save those people in question.
In this situation torture is still condemned, but at the same time it is treated realistically and it is acknowledged that, sometimes, there are situations so serious that it might be the only method available.
John Quiggin suggests that by taking personal responsibility for the torture and paying a price, it is far less likely that it will be used needlessly and worthlessly.
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
Because it is logically ridiculous to ask someone to do something for the good of the country and then for that country to jail them for it.
You jail people for things that are wrong. If you are advocating a situation where it is not wrong, then there should be no penalty for it.
So that question from Cline strikes me as foolish. It is also irelevant, because history has shown damn good torturers whose loyalty to protecting the state is unquestioned and yet who would pointblank refuse to be sent to jail for it. It is a fallacy to try and connect the two.
I mean really. The only torturer to be trusted is the one who is willing to go to jail for it? It's hogwash. It is like saying that killing is wrong, so all the soliders in the Allied side in World War II should do time for murder.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
This assumes that you are you as your are now--not you as if you were entrusted with vital information. A government agent, perhaps. What if, in giving up the information so easily, you would end up aiding in the deaths of countless others? What if it was your family?
What Osaka has written, though, is the problem with torture overused: if the victim is tortured endlessly, he or she is going to start making things up in order to sate the torturer's appetites. That's why there would have to be certain limits set in place, and the torture would have to be more like the torture in the Inquisition.
Personally, I am irritated by what I've been told about the horrors of the Inquisition all this time (assuming that the writer of the article is correct)--we've been lead to believe that the evil Christians tortured anyone suspected of heresy to the death (assuming that the person would not recant). Rather, it seems that the treatment of Christians in centuries past has been far worse.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
you cant trust information from someone who has just been TORTURED!
torture is the new thing now isnt it.
ive seen more torture in tv programs than ever before, plus they throw torutre storys around in newspapers like its normal and good. well hey, thats how they get answers now! and they want you to accept it!
desensitizing us.
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
My view - torture - the use of inventive tacticts to cause extreme pain (whether physical or mental), is not automatically bad. I agree that restraint should be used in interrogating someone. The limit on interrogation torture that I would set is "no permanent physical damage" .
Now, there's another aspect of torture that many people want to overlook - torture as punshment. I agree with the saying "let the punishment fit the crime". Unfortunately most punishments these days don't fit. A few years in jail for rape? A couple of decades for child molestation? The legal system is more worried about reforming the criminal than executing justice!
The only thing that really worries me about implementing torture in interrogations and punishments is the slippery slope thing. I know it's a logical fallacy, but in some cases it has some merit. I would be worried that this was one of them.
Though, I believe that any use of torture must be more humane than a hot poker into a bodily orifice. Nothing that causes such severe trauma to the body.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I partially agree. Any information that's obtained by duress is suspect, but it can give you a place to start. Any information obtained from an enemy is to be doubted and verification must be sought, but if multiple interogations of multiple people yield a similar story, it's definitely worth investigating.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 19th, 2006 07:41 PM
