As much as it pains me to say so, I have to agree with SwamP_ThinG. Torture is simply not sanctionable, especially tying a guy to a chair and beating him until he gives up the information. Holding someone in jail because you "just know he did it" is kind of the same thing. We, as a society, have to be better. We have to live to a different code. We have to have better information and ensure that the information is correct.

Torture and wrongful imprisonment are the easy ways out.

Of course it would be harder for me to hold this position if it were my children or my wife or anyone else I cared deeply about. But I would have to hold it, and I would have to effectuate change so that it never happens again.

If my children or my wife were killed, and I knew who did it, there would be no measure of suffering that I would bring down upon the person or persons who did it. I would torture them severely before they died (which would not be for a very long time). But this is after the fact. To torture a person before the crime is to run the risk that I am torturing the wrong person.

I don't hold this view based on the theory that violence begets violence, as SwamP_ThinG has proposed.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Of course torture is sometimes justified. It has been used by every single country on the globe, and in every era, in some form or another. While I laud SwamP_ThinG's lofty idealism his arguments simply have no real foundation in reality, I'm afraid.

The answer to the question of whether there is ever really sufficient justification for resorting to torture is obvious if you put it into a real worst-case scenario. If one individual had the means (lets plagiarize the "24" plot and say this person had a deadly plague that would absolutely kill every human on the planet eventually, if released) to destroy all the other people on the entire planet, and you caught him but could only save the human race by torturing him for the details necessary to avert the disaster, would torture be okay then?

Sure it would be. The fundamental right to exist of every man, woman and child on the entire planet surely outweighs the right of one person to not be subjected to torture while still actively attempting to kill all those other innocent people. The fact that you saved the entire human race would more than make up for the fact that you had to stoop to torture in order to do it. In that case it's clearly justified (in the majority's best interests) that you not be required to "be any better" than the person or persons that you torture. Being "no worse" would certainly suffice.

Having said that, let me also say that from all I've heard and been taught torture is a pretty lousy way to get info anyway. It may have some uses in a real emergency, but aside from that it's usually downright counterproductive. People don't care about telling the truth under physical torture; they'll tell you whatever it is they think you really want to hear, and that's worse than useless.

This whole business at Abu Ghraib was amature in the extreme. Stunningly so. That was immediately obvious just by the way it was done. Critical intelligence interrogations don't ever use physical torture anymore, they use drugs. It's fast, surprisingly safe, and highly reliable. That's been the tool of choice for ages now. The prisoners themselves don't even know they were interrogated most of the time, or what they said. There is no pain involved, other than slipping the IV into the vein in their arm perhaps - and if even that bothers you, the drugs can also be given orally instead, in the food. When your dentist pulls a tooth for you he actually does more physical injury to you than what a modern-day interrogator would ever do. I don't see too many people coming out of their dentist's office claiming to be suffering irreperable permanent mental and emotional trauma or damage.

In real modern interrogations the general rule seems to be "What a person doesn't even know they've revealed certainly can't hurt them"

If you allow the torture of a man you know is guilty to save 10 lives, it might be seen as something positive. But the next step will be the torture of a man who is probably guilty. And later you will torture a man who you think knows somebody who knows somebody who has information about something. What I'm trying to say is this: If you allow torture for one thing, anything, boundaries get blurry, and torture becomes an acceptable interrogation method or even a punishment. If you want to live in a civilized society you can never allow torture. Ever!

You seem to be arguing "slippery slope," but to oppose torture in the hypothetical that I described because eventually we would use torture in much less "understandable" circumstances is akin to banning baseball because once people get used to hitting baseballs with a bat, they will eventually use the bats to hit people.

I have never been in the military, but if I could get some information that would save three lives by assaulting a prisoner, I would do it in a moment. And, if that makes me less enlightened, I can live with that.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

But there is no guarantee you will get the information. The only thing that is certain is that you will be a torturer. To use your own analogy: if the suspect were someone you cared deeply about, would you sanction torture in order to save the 3 unknown?

There was an interesting show on HBO last night "Strip Search". Basically, two "detainees" - one a US citizen in China, the other an Arab man in the US. I suppose the message was that you could expect this sort of thing to happen in China, but it seems discordant in the US. But, in fact, the scene has probably been played out in some FBI office since 9.11. Indeed, as the show points out, some 700 people have been "detained" since 9.11; 400 some were illegal aliens and deported, 4 were American citizens - held without due process.

The beginning and ending were the same - the question is posed, "If you were guaranteed that all terrorism would be erradicated, would you give up all of your rights for one day? for a week? a month? a year? etc..

Though I was disappointed with the show (not as clear cut and hard-hitting as I would've liked) I hope that it stirs some discussion. It asks some very basic questions - much like this one, that Americans need to ask themselves and then understand what the ramifications are.

What is the cost of freedom? What is the cost of civility? What is the cost of guaranteeing that no innocent men be imprisoned? Sometimes the costs are high. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

If a close friend (or family member) was serving in Iraq, for example, and the enemy (whoever the enemy is this week) grabbed him and beat him into telling where three enemy soldiers were being held, I would be horrified, but I would admit that capture and physical interrogation is one of the risks he accepted when he joined the military.

Of course, this is much easier to say when, in fact, it actually isn't happening to someone I know. I don't know how I would react if it really happened.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Still taking pot shots at me, Ranger? Man, you are a lousy shot at that!
The question posted in the thread was not wether torture exists in the real world. It´s wether it SHOULD exist, or not.
You know my answer.

If you agree with torture being used, how in hell do you have the nerve to stand there and demonize everyone else who uses it? Why was Saddam´s name dragged through the mud on torture charges, if you think it´s ok? Or Pinochet? Or Pol Pot? Or Hitler? How dare you judge others and expect no judgement for yourselfs?
Why is it that when its someone else sitting in the accused chair, you guys yell "rape", but when it´s you sitting there you say it´s "excusable" behaviour...
And don´t come using the family or loved one excuse either. The chance of that happening is so small that it is neglectible.
Since Ranger brought it up, about wether torturing a guy to save the whole world is ok, let´s examine it closer:
First of all, anyone willing to wipe out civilization like that has to be prepared to die himself. Do you think torture would scare him? And what makes you think he would tell you the truth, and not send you on a wild goose chase?
The tortured man will do anything and say anything to get the pain to stop. So why would you waste your precious time torturing someone knowing that you have a slim chance of getting a truthfull statement?

If you want to make torture "legal", you have to make it legal for everybody, for every country. You can´t go around saying "we are good torturers, but they are bad torturers", or "we torture to do good, while they torture to do evil". Torture is torture. There is no ambiguity in the act of torturing someone. You are willfully inflicting pain on someone. And that has no place in a civilized world.
You guys are quick to judge when you sit on the right side of the fence, but you forget that the door swings both ways. If you agree that the US should be allowed to conduct torture on its prisioners, you also will have to agree on the opposite, where americans are the ones being tortured.
There is a motto that i use always, in everything i do in life, the way i think, the way i do things, the way i behave:
"Never do onto others what you don´t want done onto you."
You don´t want to be tortured, then don´t torture anyone. It´s simple.

In the short run, you might think you are doing some good by torturing someone in order to save others. But in the long run, you are doing your people no favours. The tortured man will become angry, his hatread for you will grow, and before you know it you have a whole bunch of people in need of rescueing also. Are you gonna torture others again, to save those? That´s a pretty good way to make enemies, that´s for shure.
You start torturing people and excuse it´s use, and pretty soon every nation, every warlord, every one with some power over someone else will start doing it too. And not before long you´ll find that when the shoe´s on the other foot, you won´t like it nearly as much.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I know some nasty stuff has been written lately by various people, but calling your view "lofty idealism" was not nasty and I would not consider it a pot shot. He is only saying that you view is not reasonable when considering how the real world operates.

We all need to take a step back and realize that we are dealing with friends and not every negative statement is a personal attack.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

In theory you shouldn't allow torture, but in practice it might not be that easy to maintain your views.

If I think of a situation where my loved ones were held captive and the only way to save their lives would be to beat one of the captors I wouldn't hesitate one moment. I'm not saying its right, but that's what I'd do.

A bit similar situation:

If you knew for sure that by killing one man you could save the lives of 100 men, would you do it?

__________________

And what if you're 99,9% sure? or 75%?