Good torture, bad torture

Because of the new OBL film the media is debating the torture again. I am not sure what is there to debate. There is good torture and there is bad torture:

Good: Kidnapper is caught but unwilling to expose the location of the kidnapped, who might die in a very cruel way if not rescued in time.
Bad: Torturing locals for information while you are conquering their land for natural resources.

How hard it is to settle?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A good torture is when you feed him with all sort of good food and be friendly to him, tray to get him to your side

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hard. Because torturers, once they see the benefit in torturing to (say) find the kidnap victims, or find the ticking time bomb, will also see the value in:

-torturing the kidnapper's accomplice to find the kidnapper (same thing, right?)
-torturing the kidnapper's friends to find the kidnapper's accomplice (same thing, trying to save those poor victims)

If you give someone a hammer and tell them there are kidnap victims to save, they will use it wherever they can. In the name of justice, of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And as billvon said, it gets harder than you think. Yes, there is kidnapper's accomplice, friends of kidnapper... then there's person who you're pretty sure is the kidnapper, and person who you're pretty sure is accomplice to person who you're pretty sure is kidnapper, and person who you're pretty sure if friends with the person who you're pretty sure is the accomplice to the person who you're pretty sure is the kidnapper.

And all of this is assuming that information gathered under torture is reliable, which it isn't.

 

No such thing as good torture. We should instead be focusing our attention on mind reading devices.

 

Just like there are good wars (obviously a defensive war has to be good), there are good tortures. Actually, since there are no absolutes, we should talk about useful and useless tortures instead.

Sure it can get complicated, such is life. I hate when people bring up the reliability shit. Can't we decide AFTERWARD if it was reliable or not?

My point was about the reason to torture. If you do it for the wrong reason, it is bad. Same as with wars... Would you say defending your homeland is not a good war?

You are getting technical, I was discussing the moral aspects of it.

OK, so no good argument, can we close the issue?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And my examples were all about torturing someone for the RIGHT reason. It can still go bad quite quickly.

 

Torture is useless in creating a moral un-hypocritical society.

 

Ever heard of the torture device called a pear? That's bad.

Knowing how some countries torture and get information and make arrests. Bad.

Knowing we have to much input on torture can be... Bad.

I like knowing how americans were treated in Vietnam and it was acceptable till after the war.
Maybe there way was useful. And we should try it once in a while and find out.

We americans have guts. But not the type it normally takes to do some "bad" things to people.

I like the phone book "trick". Cops have used them successfully before. Had a friend who told me of it.
We should use that a lot.

 

Dude, you annoy the hell out of me.

That's not the reason torture is used...

 

Torture is bad. Is it bad to have to hate? The act of hate to kill, not that which I do hate?

Can I do the same action in a passive state? Should I not let a bad man walk away from me?

Torture is bad. To have to hate! Good thing!

Not to move falsely. We need to be telepathic because my mind easily manufactured it. comprehend it. Is this thread really about torture as a positive thing? Why the outbreak of shooters? Bad people, eat bad people. I hate and am lied about to cover, more hate. Hate.

 

Then, by observing that one of those happens only in movies, and the other one is common throughout human history and today, we can shorten it up:
Good: fictional
Bad: real

The most useful torturing is probably the worst - because of what torture is useful for: oppression through fear. That's what everyone who tortures uses it for - without exception. And no, your government is not going to be the first to not do that. (Consider the release of KSM's bogus, rambling, mentally damaged, tortured confession - it only makes sense if the purpose was to demonstrate to our enemies that we can make you say anything).

Of course not. You cannot untorture people. You cannot even start over, avoiding the consequences of having tortured. That means the entire arena is chock full of confirmation bias - the info you excluded by torture, including the informants you will now never see, etc, is not there to be compared. The benefits of never torturing are not there to be compared.

It's always done for bad reasons, if shortsighted and counterproductive sadism is a bad reason.

Example: We almsot certainly caught the Unabomber because we had no policy, at the time, of torturing terrorists or potential informants. His family fingered him, and only with the explicit guarantee of good treatment (for him: the idea of themselves beign tortured for information never occured to them - as it would have to, to anyone considering fingering an AQ honcho say). If we'd had a policy of waterboarding terrorism suspects and informants then, (and that is the perfect scene always brought up by torture apologists, catch him quickly before he kills again, time is pressing), he might still be out there - the investigators were nowhere near finding him.

Makign one's official law and military and the like odious and feared among decent people is a bad idea, on pragmatic grounds alone.

 

Hey, I haven't even brought up the torture as punishment argument (as opposite to torture for info). Here is a question:

Let's say you are caught stealing. You have 2 choices to decide between as your punishment:

1. 1 year in prison
2. 50 lashes

I would go for the lashes, because I would be up and running in a month but nobody can give me my lost TIME back....

 

Torture does not work any better than normal interrogation in getting useful or accurate information, in fact it is worse, always. Someone extremely motivated by their cause will not give up information under torture, not information that can be trusted. And anyone not so motivated can be talked out of the information without torture. Added to that is the treatment of prisoners by the enemy, if you torture you have no right to expect your comrades in enemy hands won't be as well. That is why torture is a war crime and it's practitioners war criminals. There simply is no "good" torture in any situation.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To put one in prison and keep him, would this be a drag on me as well? Best identify all those rotten and give them a state of their own.

 

Torture -- that is, direct torture, e.g. water-boarding -- is often ineffective in the pursuit of hidden information. This is because false answers are often given to avoid further torture, in cases where the tortured both know the information requested, and don't. Many innocent people have been convicted on the basis of a confession during torture.

Also, there is no such thing, really, as objectively 'good' torture. When using such absolutes, we should be mindful of our ethnocentrism, and the fact that the ends do not always justify the means. We should also evaluate the correctional facilities of our world, are they not a form of torture? Is imprisonment 'good' torture if it deters recidivism and allows for 'just' punishment? What if it is a private prison -- is it still 'good' torture if someone is profiting?

 

Kindness works. Compassion.

LOL.

 

Thank you for throwing out absolutes. The point is the morality of torture, not the results of it. If we found the kidnapped kids, it obviously worked. Making a stats on torture is rather pointless not to mention impossible.

But I tell you what. Your 2 kids are the ones who are going to die in the next 7 days of hunger and thirst, alone in the dark. There is no direct evidence against the kidnapper, thus there is a good chance he is simply going to walk. Police is 100% sure they got the right guy, just without good evidence for the court. Your only chance of saving your kids is to make him talk. Obviously, if he talks he goes to prison for life, so he has a very strong incentive to give you the finger.

Your move....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe you can torture him with your kindness....

 

Syzygys

Absolutes are appropriate where they apply. And morally, it is always wrong. Looking for justification after the fact is risking being very morally wrong, you know. And no matter how much right wingers wish it was different ALL of our intelligence professionals say the same thing I do about torture. If it is intimidation, terrorizing or kangaroo justice you seek, have at it(though these are morally ambiguous at best), if it is information you seek use other, better methods. There is a reason torture to get confessions is not allowed in our legal system, because those under torture tend to tell the torturer whatever the torturer thinks is true, not what necessarily is true. Whatever it takes to get the beatings to stop. An interrogator who resorts to torture has already failed, no further reliable information is likely in that session or in any subsequent interrogation session. And the interrogator has become as morally wrong as the criminal he is trying to catch.

This is the real world, not an episode of 24. Visceral reactions based on emotions are not a rational basis for action, ever. And the only way the cops could be 100% certain is if they had sufficient evidence of his guilt to charge him, if they have no such evidence it is likely they have the wrong man and should be chasing other leads. Any torture on your part would be assault with intent, landing your overwrought and irrational ass in jail. You've been watching too much Law and Order, evidently.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!