Torture - Politics Forum - FictionPress.com

Topic: Torture

In another attempt to bring life back to our waning political discussions, I thought of this topic after a discussion we had in AP World History. What do you think of torture as a way of getting intelligence? What cases (if any) should it be used in and how much? Keep in mind Abu Gharib (sorry for spelling), Mossad (Israel intelligence), etc.

#1 Jan 12th 2007, 3:49pm

Hmm... mental torture is much more efficient, I am okay with that. Physical torture will only strengthen their will, and there would be too many liberals protesting it. But things like sleep deprival, constant blaring music, and food teasing are okay in my book.

#2 Jan 12th 2007, 5:58pm

there would be too many liberals protesting it

Ha ha. Would only liberals protest it? Are liberals not tough enough? hah.

Anyway...Mossad has used physical torture to get intel to great results. It doesn't really strenghten their will. It breaks it that's the idea of torture. In theory anyhow....

But do the ends justify the means? If you knew a guy had a bomb somewhere and you needed to know where...

you wouldn't blare music at him...so how far do you go? Is Physical and Sexual torture ok, then?

Personally, I don't believe in torturing someone in this situation. I think that you have done something to be in that situation and torturing someone else to get you out of it is not right. Take responsibilty one might say, but what i mean is that you are at war with terror, so the enemy combatants are terrorists, therefore the geneva convention would apply to them. That was my argument in the class discussion, which people weren't very responsive during...so I figured the more politically thinking people here would say more.

#3 Jan 12th 2007, 8:51pm

Well, all the conservatives I know (alot) say that they are cool with the idea of torture.

Physically I would draw the limit at sexual torture. I dont mean rape or whatever, I mean comprimise. A suspect's will would break pretty quickly if you had naked women parade in front of him and not allowing him to... how should I put it... satisfy his lust. I assume.

But, I guess that is kind of mental torture. I think that deprivation/teasing torture, like what I just described, would work in most cases. You could starve him (to an extent) while forcing him to look at (and smell) something along the lines of thanksgiving dinner. If you don't kill him and you don't permanently injure him, if it saves lives, then I think itis justifiable

#4 Jan 13th 2007, 5:51pm

Torture is wrong. Plain wrong. As a means of gathering intelligence it is wrong. Physical torture is an antiquated, brutally cruel way of doing anything. Mental torture, such as the ones you put forward, Onetrackmind, are also incredibly cruel. You think minds can't be permanently damaged by starvation, sleep deprivation or any other kind of deprivation and torture in general? Try to study a little bit of psychology, you'll discover that just the fact you're being tortured will do incredible things to your mind. The whole idea of torture is that if you don't give the torturer the information he is looking for, he might continue hurting you, he might continue abusing you, or you might die. What sort of things do you think that does to a person's state of being?

#5 Feb 02nd 2007, 3:28pm

Well, then, if the person was at the point that they were on the verge of permanent damage they would talk.

And if torture was used, then it would be justified. The idea, maybe i didnt state it in my last post, was that the situation would call for the release of the information to save lives. Two lives can justify one life (under most circumstances).

#6 Feb 03rd 2007, 8:32pm

If you are at risk of permanent damage, are you going to tell the truth, or what you think your jailor wants to hear? By the time a person is in that sort of mental state- that they will say absolutely anything if they think it means their torture will end, their testimony really shouldn't be considered, even if it is going to save lives.

#7 Feb 04th 2007, 1:59am

That is where a military tactic often reffered to as 'triangulization of information' comes in. You will check three+ sources to verify that the information that you recieve is not incorrect.

#8 Feb 04th 2007, 5:54pm

What sorts of sources? Sources from other torture victims?

#9 Feb 05th 2007, 3:43am

not neccesarily.

#10 Feb 05th 2007, 6:12pm

But if they have those sorts of sources, how come they need to torture people in the first place?

#11 Feb 05th 2007, 11:29pm

That said, ONETRACKMIND, do you believe torture of American POWs is justifiable?

#12 Feb 06th 2007, 9:32am

^ Bump. Just would like a response cause u may not have seen this.

#13 Feb 10th 2007, 11:09pm

Well, Lord-of-fools, we need something to base our data on. It would probably wind up being other tortured people.

Blackbird, I don't like the idea of our people being tortured, but that can be said of most americans (I hope). I don't like the Idea of torture as anything but a last resort to save lives. If it can be justified, then whatever.

#14 Feb 11th 2007, 2:43pm

If you found out that a friend of yours had been tortured, what your honest reaction be? Would you think, 'oh they were saving lives, that's okay'? Most likely, the friends of, say, an alleged terrorist would, upon discovering that their friend has been tortured, are going to plot some sort of revenge. And if those friends have been arrested, then their children, their brothers, comrades... somewhere along the line, there's going to be a backlash. Meaning, in actuality, that torturing someone, even as a last resort to save lives, is going to cause the deaths of more people.

#15 Mar 09th 2007, 11:15pm

crazeedaizee411

Some People give in even if they're innocent just to stop the torture. It's not as effective as some people beleive. It's not exactly a bad idea, it just has some flaws...

#16 May 07th, 6:42am