Debate: Can torture ever be justified?

[ray245]

While many people is opposed to torture, I was wondering, can Torture ever be justifed in any context?

Is the need to gather infomation so great, that you have a good reason to torture someone? This is an open debate, which means people can define when Torture can be justified, and when it can't.

Although you are free to oppose torture in any context.

[Hillary]

The basic problem with torture as an information-gathering exercise is that the information gained is wholly unreliable - people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, in order to stop the torture.

Imagine, for example, you are innocent of a crime. You know that telling the truth will ensure the torture continues. You also know that lying will stop it. What would you do?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, it is not. Those who engage in torture surrender the moral high ground, which can hurt politically and diplomatically. They encourage reprisals in kind against their own captive troops. And the intelligence is hardly reliable.

Regardless, the ends don't justify the means here.

[PainRack]

No, it is not. Those who engage in torture surrender the moral high ground, which can hurt politically and diplomatically. They encourage reprisals in kind against their own captive troops. And the intelligence is hardly reliable.

Regardless, the ends don't justify the means here.

Well....... Algeria does show that torture can break "known" suspects and corroborate intelligence...... The problem is, its the sort of thing that win an event, and lose the war.

So......... no dice. There is the Jack bauer argument"What would you do if a nuclear bomb exists and its going to go off in 12 hours" crap, but frankly, if anyone can get to that timeframe and not know where the general vicinity of the bomb is but is lucky enough to capture the real bomber................... God must be dicking around with you.

[Nathaniel]

Of course torture can be justified. It just depends on how extreme the circumstances are, and that's a whole different sub-debate. In the nucular terrorist neocon wankfest, the information gathered from torture could be immediately useful and the negative publicity well worth the damage prevented. It's absolutely a matter of degrees.

The issue of reliable evidence itself becomes less important when we consider the torture of a group of people. While a single person might lie, if you have enough subjects and enough time, useful information can be extracted by checking the accounts against each other and identifying common facts. It's practically imposible to keep up a coherent lie indefinitely, even with training.

[Solauren]

Are we talking physical pain torture, psychological torture, emotional torture?

And what form of handling.

Because, under the proper handling and circumstances, torture MIGHT be acceptable. However, it's a very narrow set of circumstances, and very specific handling and methodology.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It's practically imposible to keep up a coherent lie indefinitely, even with training.

The problem is confirmation bias on the part of the interrogators; the "answers" they get from the first victim will change the questions they ask the second, and so on down the line. This is how the NKVD conjured up conspiracies involving hundreds and thousands of people where none existed.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The issue of reliable evidence itself becomes less important when we consider the torture of a group of people. While a single person might lie, if you have enough subjects and enough time, useful information can be extracted by checking the accounts against each other and identifying common facts. It's practically imposible to keep up a coherent lie indefinitely, even with training.

One problem with that logic is that they will ALL be lying. That's what tortured people do. Oh, they'll all agree on "facts" all right - because they'll be agreeing with whatever the torturer expects to hear.

[Zixinus]

Torture itself is sadistic and pointless. The information, even as group, will be unreliable and questionable at best.

There are ways to get information out of someone other than torture, if you just use creativity.

[Twoyboy]

It's practically imposible to keep up a coherent lie indefinitely, even with training.

The problem is confirmation bias on the part of the interrogators; the "answers" they get from the first victim will change the questions they ask the second, and so on down the line. This is how the NKVD conjured up conspiracies involving hundreds and thousands of people where none existed.

You could get around this problem using experimental design of sorts. Different torturers for different people, some one separate reviewing the results for the common points.

However, I see this as being like the whole "people tell you anything when they're drunk" myth. The problem is... they're drunk. They don't know what the fuck they're saying. I don't think it would take much torture to make me delusional and start confessing to 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. Thus, intelligence of other sorts would be more effective, removing the dilemma entirely.

[petesampras]

I don't think that torture can ever be justified. The ends do not justify the means. Even if you are fighting to stop a great evil, you won't achieve a victory by becoming evil yourself.

However, I do not agree with the statement that information gathered through torture must be useless.

If you know some information, but not all of it. You could feasibly torture someone for the information you know first, then move on to the information you don't. If they don't know what you do know and what you don't, they are likely going to start answering correctly whenever they actually have the information. I know I certainly would. Of course, you have the problem of them giving false answers to things that they don't know and also the possibility of those that can take any amount of torture. But, if you have captured multiple 'enemies', you can corroborate to filter that out. Will it be 100% reliable, of course not, but intelligence information doesn't need to be 100% reliable to have some value.

Justified - never
Potentially useful information - maybe

[Twoyboy]

I don't think that torture can ever be justified. The ends do not justify the means. Even if you are fighting to stop a great evil, you won't achieve a victory by becoming evil yourself.

Why not? What if the "ends" are preventing a nuclear holocaust and the "means" is torturing one guy? You wouldn't do that because you don't want to be evil? That's pretty selfish.

However, I do not agree with the statement that information gathered through torture must be useless.

If you know some information, but not all of it. You could feasibly torture someone for the information you know first, then move on to the information you don't.

That's exactly what those above are talking about when they say the torturer will "lead" the subject. If you know some of the information, you'll unknowingly lead them to give this up and once they're talking they'll just tell you what you want to hear, true or not.

[petesampras]

I don't think that torture can ever be justified. The ends do not justify the means. Even if you are fighting to stop a great evil, you won't achieve a victory by becoming evil yourself.

Why not? What if the "ends" are preventing a nuclear holocaust and the "means" is torturing one guy? You wouldn't do that because you don't want to be evil? That's pretty selfish.

However, I do not agree with the statement that information gathered through torture must be useless.

If you know some information, but not all of it. You could feasibly torture someone for the information you know first, then move on to the information you don't.

That's exactly what those above are talking about when they say the torturer will "lead" the subject. If you know some of the information, you'll unknowingly lead them to give this up and once they're talking they'll just tell you what you want to hear, true or not.

That could be solved by the torturer just following a set of predetermined questions word-for-word from a sheet.

[Hillary]

That could be solved by the torturer just following a set of predetermined questions word-for-word from a sheet.

How does this solve the problem? As I said, people being tortured will give the answer they think will stop the torture. That is true of 1 person or 100 people. It wouldn't really come as a surprise if the majority of the 100 people came to the same conclusion as to which answer was the "correct" one.

[petesampras]

That could be solved by the torturer just following a set of predetermined questions word-for-word from a sheet.

How does this solve the problem? As I said, people being tortured will give the answer they think will stop the torture. That is true of 1 person or 100 people. It wouldn't really come as a surprise if the majority of the 100 people came to the same conclusion as to which answer was the "correct" one.

I answered this earlier. Let's say you have no morals and are happy to use torture to achieve your ends. Now, you have a bunch of enemies you have captured and you want some information from them. You know some enemy information from other means. So, you devise two sets of questions. One about information you already know. One about information you don't. For each person being tortured you first ask from the questions that you already know the answers. Wrong answers get some awful act performed on the person. You then move onto the second set of questions. By now, if they know the right answer they are likely to give it. If they don't they will make something up. But..you have a bunch of people. The made up stuff can be filtered by corroborating the responses.

Now, will such information be 100% reliable...no. But, intelligence doesn't need to be 100% reliable to be useful.

[Hillary]

That could be solved by the torturer just following a set of predetermined questions word-for-word from a sheet.

How does this solve the problem? As I said, people being tortured will give the answer they think will stop the torture. That is true of 1 person or 100 people. It wouldn't really come as a surprise if the majority of the 100 people came to the same conclusion as to which answer was the "correct" one.

I answered this earlier. Let's say you have no morals and are happy to use torture to achieve your ends. Now, you have a bunch of enemies you have captured and you want some information from them. You know some enemy information from other means. So, you devise two sets of questions. One about information you already know. One about information you don't. For each person being tortured you first ask from the questions that you already know the answers. Wrong answers get some awful act performed on the person. You then move onto the second set of questions. By now, if they know the right answer they are likely to give it. If they don't they will make something up. But..you have a bunch of people. The made up stuff can be filtered by corroborating the responses.

Now, will such information be 100% reliable...no. But, intelligence doesn't need to be 100% reliable to be useful.

I am struggling with the logic here.

Person 1 tells a lie and is zapped until he answers the question correctly. Therefore, when you ask question 2, he is likely to give you the right answer straight off. How does this follow?

You are also making the assumption that the people you are torturing are actually in the know. If you arrest 100 people and question them in this way, how many of them will actually know the information you are after?

In your scenario, the people answer Q1 correctly don't get the shock. They may well think of calling the torturer's bluff for Q2. Those who answered Q1 incorrectly may not even know the right answer. Therefore Q2 is likely to be beyond them too, but having been zapped they may not want to risk saying "I don't know".

In a real world situation, there are far too many unknowns and I don't see your scenario addressing my point, to be honest.

[petesampras]

I am struggling with the logic here.

Person 1 tells a lie and is zapped until he answers the question correctly. Therefore, when you ask question 2, he is likely to give you the right answer straight off. How does this follow?

Because he doesn't want to get zapped!! It's not just two questions, but a whole set of known and unknowns. If the guy getting tortured knows the correct answer and he is not sure if the torturer does or not, he is more likely to answer correctly since that minimises the chance of him getting another zap or whatever.

You are also making the assumption that the people you are torturing are actually in the know. If you arrest 100 people and question them in this way, how many of them will actually know the information you are after?

Well you are presumable not torturing random people for the information. The assumption is that some of the 100 know. That's where corroboration helps. The random, answer-anything-to-avoid-more-torture, will likely not back each other up. The real answers will.

In your scenario, the people answer Q1 correctly don't get the shock. They may well think of calling the torturer's bluff for Q2. Those who answered Q1 incorrectly may not even know the right answer. Therefore Q2 is likely to be beyond them too, but having been zapped they may not want to risk saying "I don't know".

In a real world situation, there are far too many unknowns and I don't see your scenario addressing my point, to be honest.

Answering correctly won't guarantee not getting zapped, but it will minimise the chances of it happening. If you are getting tortured you will do anything to minimise that chance, surely? Remember you don't know when the torturer is asking a question they know the answer to and when they are asking one they don't know the answer to.

There are many unknowns, but intelligence information doesn't need to be 100%

[Alyrium Denryle]

That could be solved by the torturer just following a set of predetermined questions word-for-word from a sheet.

How does this solve the problem? As I said, people being tortured will give the answer they think will stop the torture. That is true of 1 person or 100 people. It wouldn't really come as a surprise if the majority of the 100 people came to the same conclusion as to which answer was the "correct" one.

I answered this earlier. Let's say you have no morals and are happy to use torture to achieve your ends. Now, you have a bunch of enemies you have captured and you want some information from them. You know some enemy information from other means. So, you devise two sets of questions. One about information you already know. One about information you don't. For each person being tortured you first ask from the questions that you already know the answers. Wrong answers get some awful act performed on the person. You then move onto the second set of questions. By now, if they know the right answer they are likely to give it. If they don't they will make something up. But..you have a bunch of people. The made up stuff can be filtered by corroborating the responses.

Now, will such information be 100% reliable...no. But, intelligence doesn't need to be 100% reliable to be useful.

Here is the problem. You have explicitly stated that you will be solving the problems with torture victims lying to you, by zapping them until they tell you what you want to hear. Then when you ask leading questions in the second go, they will also give you what you want to hear. You are a fucking idiot.

Moreover, you are a fucking sociopath.

Because he doesn't want to get zapped!! It's not just two questions, but a whole set of known and unknowns. If the guy getting tortured knows the correct answer and he is not sure if the torturer does or not, he is more likely to answer correctly since that minimises the chance of him getting another zap or whatever.

No, it doesnt. He will tell the interrogator what he wants to hear regardless of whether it is true or not. You can grab 100 people off the street and torture them, and they will all eventually arrive at the same answer. They will all be part of a secret conspiracy to nuke the district of columbia.

Well you are presumable not torturing random people for the information. The assumption is that some of the 100 know. That's where corroboration helps. The random, answer-anything-to-avoid-more-torture, will likely not back each other up. The real answers will.

If you already have intelligence such that you have a set of answers you think might be true, why not just act on those instead of "confirming" it through a means that even the inquisition couldnt get reliable information out of. What? You think what you are trying has not been tried before numbnuts? Torture has been a tradition in this country and others for millenia.

[Sea Skimmer]

Here is the problem. You have explicitly stated that you will be solving the problems with torture victims lying to you, by zapping them until they tell you what you want to hear. Then when you ask leading questions in the second go, they will also give you what you want to hear. You are a fucking idiot.

You’re just being dumb because you don’t want to admit that torture could actually have value, even if its not ever justified. If you have ONE source of information, you can NEVER trust it no matter what. So does this mean we just assume everything in life is a lie? No, it means we fit together the pieces and look for discontinuations and obvious inaccuracies, steadily adding more pieces and refining the picture as we go. This is what intelligence is all about and it doesn’t matter of your tortured a thousand innocent people, or just filtered through electronic intercepts you got from a fully legal wiretapping operation. Nothing in intelligence gathering is ever a sure thing or 100% complete, but you can get pretty damn certain about some things.

A lot of horrible things can have value, like it or not. A dead human body for example, it can be turned into fertilizer, soap, wigs, and you can rip out the gold fillings with pliers to fund the whole murder operation. Does admitting this reality justifies the whole thing? Of course not. The claim torture has no value is just false, and its too bad, since if we really knew it didn’t work a fair bit less of it might go on.

[Hillary]

I am struggling with the logic here.

Person 1 tells a lie and is zapped until he answers the question correctly. Therefore, when you ask question 2, he is likely to give you the right answer straight off. How does this follow?

Because he doesn't want to get zapped!! It's not just two questions, but a whole set of known and unknowns. If the guy getting tortured knows the correct answer and he is not sure if the torturer does or not, he is more likely to answer correctly since that minimises the chance of him getting another zap or whatever.

No, it means he is more likely to give the answer he thinks the torturer wants to hear.

You are also making the assumption that the people you are torturing are actually in the know. If you arrest 100 people and question them in this way, how many of them will actually know the information you are after?

Well you are presumable not torturing random people for the information. The assumption is that some of the 100 know. That's where corroboration helps. The random, answer-anything-to-avoid-more-torture, will likely not back each other up. The real answers will.

Not everyone within the enemy organisation will know the secrets that you are after. The real juicy stuff is usually known only by the real top knobs. Do you think, for example, that every IRA activist had comprehensive knowledge of the organisation? No - most of them would only know what could be gleaned by basic infiltration.

In your scenario, the people answer Q1 correctly don't get the shock. They may well think of calling the torturer's bluff for Q2. Those who answered Q1 incorrectly may not even know the right answer. Therefore Q2 is likely to be beyond them too, but having been zapped they may not want to risk saying "I don't know".

In a real world situation, there are far too many unknowns and I don't see your scenario addressing my point, to be honest.

Answering correctly won't guarantee not getting zapped, but it will minimise the chances of it happening. If you are getting tortured you will do anything to minimise that chance, surely? Remember you don't know when the torturer is asking a question they know the answer to and when they are asking one they don't know the answer to.

Again, you are assuming the people being tortured KNOW the right answer. This is simply assuming too much

[Samuel]

Torture is like rape- it can only be justified in situations so ludicrously contrived that if they exist, it is a good bet someone set them up for psychological testing. Or because they are the villian from Saw. And in those cases, going along would simply encourage them to try more experiments.

[Shroom Man 777]

You don't even need to torture to obtain false confessions. A lot of false confessions, proved false due to later physical evidence (DNA), have happened due to the shitty interrogation techniques of detectives on innocent parties.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You’re just being dumb because you don’t want to admit that torture could actually have value, even if its not ever justified. If you have ONE source of information, you can NEVER trust it no matter what. So does this mean we just assume everything in life is a lie? No, it means we fit together the pieces and look for discontinuations and obvious inaccuracies, steadily adding more pieces and refining the picture as we go. This is what intelligence is all about and it doesn’t matter of your tortured a thousand innocent people, or just filtered through electronic intercepts you got from a fully legal wiretapping operation. Nothing in intelligence gathering is ever a sure thing or 100% complete, but you can get pretty damn certain about some things.

And guess what, some information is more valuable than others. I can design a really shit experiment and get information out of it. Would I get it published? Would I be taken seriously? If I presented this data to the NSF and asked for more funding would I get it? No. Because the experimental design is shitty and the data, while I suppose it conforms to my pre-existing notions or even have grain of truth in it for me to sift out from all of the shit, is functionally worthless.

Torture is the same way. The methodological problems are so severe that children can point them out to you. I am not asking for 100% accuracy. We cant get that in science I dont expect it from intel. But something that is not near-complete bullshit which is what you get from torture would be nice. Torture has value, yes. In the same way that Zimbabwean currency has value.

[quote Of course not. The claim torture has no value is just false, and its too bad, since if we really knew it didn’t work a fair bit less of it might go on.[/quote]

You think pretty much every study ever published on torture to my knowledge, along with various policies, field manuals, etc would be enough to let people know it doesnt yield information that has sufficient value to give it a passing thought as a tactic.

I will be blunt. There are a lot of unjustifiable things that have/had value. Mengele's experiments in the concentration camps, our experimentation on our own troops during WW2 (seeing what desert warfare would do to infantry by marching men around in Death Valley, many of whom until death or near death), our experiments with radiation on soldiers and unwitting civilians, etc etc etc etc. All of those things were evil, but had a good amount of value attached. We still use that data.

Torture does not fall into this category, unless you have data to the contrary which repudiates the massive international consensus that it does not work.

[Valk]

I think petesampras approach would work, but I think that if all the money spent on that torture program would be spent on bribes you'd see much better results. Building a torture facility, hiring the psychology department for the questionaires, paying the guards & torturers; lot of money, and you just need to bribe one guy to get the information.

There torture does come in handy, for the guys you bribed that gave false intel. As a threat torture can be economically justified I think, "if you cross me I'll torture you". Also for information that can be tested for truth immediately, such as login information.

[Covenant]

Well, the problem with this question is the "Can it ever be" stipulation. Of course it could--you can always invent insane hypotheticals where you save millions at the cost of, I don't know, reciting long words to someone who has sesquipedaliophobia, the fear of long words. If someone is terrified of milk, and I pour milk across their hand until they give me the code to turn off the Doomsday Clock, I think that's a justified use of torture. Afterall, if it were as simple as killing one Mad Scientist to stop it, I'd do that too, and I think everyone can agree that one life to save billions makes sense.

Torture may be worse than murder, but ethically it's possible to find scenarios where it makes perfect sense. But those are hypotheticals, and we've never had that kind of a situation in reality. So torture can be justified, but it's hard to justify torture as a practice because it appears to be so hit and miss and provide such routinely unreliable information from a small sample. Using it as an information gathering technique from a wide array of people, most of which probably no nothing of real value, only causes issues. You'd need to keep anyone from knowing you were torturing people, and that involves a lot of blood and dirty deals. And you still need to prove it isn't actually slowing you down by creating false conspiracies and other wild goose chases, and by shifting manpower, good sources and funds away from more reliable, renewable sources of information extraction.