What is Torture?

[Razor]

What in your opinion is an acceptable form of torture to be used against any personnel, civilian or otherwise, with irrefutable evidence to their guilt, interms of acting against a government/idealogy that you support.

 

[jondy]

I'm not sure people can single out a single policy on this; there are huge grey areas depending upon circumstance if you advocate torture at all

 

[Razor]

I'm not sure people can single out a single policy on this; there are huge grey areas depending upon circumstance if you advocate torture at all

A person has been proved 100% to be acting against your government and idealogy, he might have evidence that could lead to further arrests and to further convictions, arrests and convictions of people that might be planning acts of violence against civilian and non-civilian targets.

Would you allow the military and intelligence organisations, in a time of perceived war, to torture them to extract the information, and if so, what level of torture, physical and mental or just mental.

-----

In my opinion, Psychological torture, such as sleep deprivation, loud and continuous noises and prolonged periods of large men shouting abuse at you can be acceptable, as long as the person has irrefutable evidence against them as to their crime and their is evidence pointing to them having information that would prevent loss of life or injuries to both military and non-military personnel. If the evidence is circumstantial or non-existant, no torture can be acceptable. Also, psychological torture can only be justified in a time of war and by trained personnel in the use of it, not by civilian organisations or police forces or standard military personnel with no specific training.

 

[The Monkey]

No turture whatsoever. Any form of torture should be banned, and those responsible for it should be jailed. Furthermore, if any country torture persons it violates the Human Rights, and should be subjects of sanctions by the UN.

 

[jondy]

I honestly don't know; I don't think I would be able to give an opinion on this unless I was in a position of power and really knew the stakes involved. Incidentally, what are your opinions on mind altering drugs as an aid to interrogation?

 

[Razor]

I honestly don't know; I don't think I would be able to give an opinion on this unless I was in a position of power and really knew the stakes involved. Incidentally, what are your opinions on mind altering drugs as an aid to interrogation?

Mind altering drugs would be bad, in my opinion.

 

[The Monkey]

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Almost all countries in the world have signed this. If a country cannot follow these simple rules, then they shouldn't be in the UN, and certainly not in the security council.

 

[KoreBolteR]

anybody that has the information (but refuses to tell), that can save thousands of people lives, should be tortured.

 

[lePobz]

It depends on who is being tortured and who's doing the torturing.

If you've got a convicted criminal in a torture chamber and you need to get some information out of him (say he's planted a bomb somewhere) then all forms of torture would be needed... but when theres absolutely no evidence that the person in question is guilty of anything, then you have absolutely no right to touch them, let alone pull their teeth out with pliers.

 

[dart321]

This is hard. Once again, I must say it's on the circumstances. If someone plants a nuke in New York and the government arrests said person, assuming the nuke is one a timer or something, they should torture him to get the position of the nuke.

I know that sounds Hollywood-ish but it's just a random, unlikely scenario of when torture must be used. I mean how else would you weigh it? The deaths of thousands of other people? Or the extreme discomfort of one?

 

[Bodacious]

The poll needs to be changed. Of course no form of torture is acceptable, but left wingers have blurred the line on what is torture and what is not, all for political reasons.

According to the left's definition of torture I was tortured on a daily basis for 3 solid months in Iraq. Not only was I forced to preform harsh physical labor, but I had to do it in 120 degree heat and blinding sunlight, eat MREs for every meal, and relieve myself in a self dug hole. I did that 12 hours a day and on some days I was forced to stay awake for 18 hours at a time.

Personally, I don't think I was tortured. But hey, to the left I was.

Also, a lot of what these detainees endure is what other memebers of our armed forced endure in SERE school, (ie water boarding, stuff like that).

Torture like what happened at Abu Grhaib is not acceptalble under any circumstances. The people that forced those detainees to do that violated the interrogation guidelines.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare: the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual is quite explicit in what it terms as "Coercive" and "Non-Coercive"

"the following are the principle coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similiar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis and induced regression"

 

[The Monkey]

The poll needs to be changed. Of course no form of torture is acceptable, but left wingers have blurred the line on what is torture and what is not, all for political reasons.

According to the left's definition of torture I was tortured on a daily basis for 3 solid months in Iraq. Not only was I forced to preform harsh physical labor, but I had to do it in 120 degree heat and blinding sunlight, eat MREs for every meal, and relieve myself in a self dug hole. I did that 12 hours a day and on some days I was forced to stay awake for 18 hours at a time.

Personally, I don't think I was tortured. But hey, to the left I was.

Also, a lot of what these detainees endure is what other memebers of our armed forced endure in SERE school, (ie water boarding, stuff like that).

Torture like what happened at Abu Grhaib is not acceptalble under any circumstances. The people that forced those detainees to do that violated the interrogation guidelines.

You weren't tortured. You could've quitted anytime you wanted. That's the difference.
And you can't say that it's alright in some occasions, and it's not alright sometimes, either it's right, or it's wrong.

 

[The Mullinator]

I don't really call sleep deprivation or some other psychological methods really torture. Sure they aren't pleasant but they are used to weaken the will of the mind without directly attacking it, its also very easy to recover from sleep deprivation. Constantly forcing someone to face their fears on the other hand does constitute psychological torture as it really does cause direct harm to their mind and can permanently affect their well-being.

I also don't call the threat of torture to be a form of torture.

 

[Bodacious]

You weren't tortured. You could've quitted anytime you wanted. That's the difference.
And you can't say that it's alright in some occasions, and it's not alright sometimes, either it's right, or it's wrong.

Yah, I could have set down my rifle in the middle of the desert and walked home. You are right, what was I thinking?

 

[DrDevin]

If someone is planning to come to my home and torture/hurt/kill my family or me they should be tortured! You can say torture is a bad thing but what if you and your whole family will die a very slow painful death if someone is not tortured? I for one think it is acceptable if people are in danger or there is a risk of danger. If for example a terrorist caused pain to someone then why should they not be given pain in exchange to help someone they hurt? An eye for an eye I say. However I do not believe in senseless pain there should be a good cause behind it.

 

[CptStern]

If someone is planning to come to my home and torture/hurt/kill my family or me they should be tortured! You can say torture is a bad thing but what if you and your whole family will die a very slow painful death if someone is not tortured? I for one think it is acceptable if people are in danger or there is a risk of danger. If for example a terrorist caused pain to someone then why should they not be given pain in exchange to help someone they hurt? An eye for an eye I say. However I do not believe in senseless pain there should be a good cause behind it.

ya but too bad torture is against international law ...funny how if saddam was torturing prisoners you'd all rally behind america's decision to invade iraq ...it's truely sickening the amount of double standrads some of you subscribe to

"if it's americans being tortured then it's more evil than satan himself, but if it's suspected terrorist/insurgents then it's a national duty" ...selective reasoning, selective morals, selective criteria based on race

 

[Calanen]

ya but too bad torture is against international law ...funny how if saddam was torturing prisoners you'd all rally behind america's decision to invade iraq ...it's truely sickening the amount of double standrads some of you subscribe to

International law eh? Seems to me that Canada neglects its own treaty obligations - for example the fact that the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocal law on human rights is not part of Canadian law?

http://www.ccil-ccdi.ca/bulletin/ahani.pdf

Pure hypocrisy on Canada to say that the US does not adhere to its international legal obligations, when Canada does not even incorporate them into its own legal system, ie they are not even worthy of consideration and form no part of Canadian law. Then why did Canada sign the treaties? Very hypocritical.

 

[Pesmerga]

If you're in the wrong job against the wrong country, it's not a question of morality, it's a question of how much that person is going to tell them. If you don't want to be tortured, tell em everything you know. If you don't want to let your country down, prepare to stare down the face of pain.

Now, for torture against people who have in no way subjected the country to danger is absolutely wrong.

 

[Korgoth]

People should be innocent until proven guilty, thus they shouldn't suffer to be proven guilty

 

[HunterSeeker]

If there is striking evidence that the person in question posses knowledge of say a bomb that threatens to kill large amounts of civillians then torture is acceptible, I guess. Although under no other circumstance other then civillians being in immident danger.

 

[Pesmerga]

People should be innocent until proven guilty, thus they shouldn't suffer to be proven guilty

They aren't being tortured to find that out. You are guilty when you're tortured by military agencies. Sickos like the guys in Iraq who cut the fingers off soccer players, those guys are total mindless scum of the earth.

 

[short recoil]

If human right are 100% then there should be no prison, the only thing you can do is take a moral desicion, what is worse, some terrorist being tortured to achieve information where a bomb is or 1000's people dying because of said bomb.

Of course its terrible if you are the one to be tortured, but to be honest....thats life.

 

[CptStern]

so many prisoners being released have complained of torture ...so i guess they must have had info on a bomb placed somewhere because why else would they be released?

 

[Zeus]

sometimes torture must be done to divulge information to save innocent lives

 

[AntiAnto]

sometimes torture must be done to divulge information to save innocent lives

Well in that case, it can be useful. But if we say torture can be good in some cases, there will be abuse somewhere. That's why I'm saying no tortures at all.

 

[short recoil]

Well in that case, it can be useful. But if we say torture can be good in some cases, there will be abuse somewhere. That's why I'm saying no tortures at all.

But then people say "oh if only we would have had more information from them then the 1000 people wouldn't have died"

This is yet another subject which is in the ever complex human system.

 

[Zeus]

Well in that case, it can be useful. But if we say torture can be good in some cases, there will be abuse somewhere. That's why I'm saying no tortures at all.

Ok well sometimes torture will save thousands of lifes when the terrorist hands over important information. Just because some people take it out of hand doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to save lives.

 

[Edcrab]

It may surprise people to know that, although I advocate the death penalty, I don't agree with the concept of torture. I can understand why it's is employed, I just feel uneasy with it.

Perhaps because, as an interrogation technique, it is of its very nature that it is used on suspects, rather than the guilty. Information is a powerful commodity, but too many things have been revealed under apparent duress and are thus nullified by the law.

 

[CptStern]

sometimes torture must be done to divulge information to save innocent lives

so again why were they released if they were terrorists? why torture someone who's not guilty? or is it guilt by association? guilt before proven of innocence? or do they just not have any rights?

 

[Kebean PFC]

I would have to say that to save lives, both military and civillian, torture is acceptable. I don't morally agree with it, but it is a fact of life. I know that if someone harmed either my family or my g/f, i would inflict as much pain a i could on him before he died.

Call me whatever, but that is what i would do out of blind rage.

so many prisoners being released have complained of torture

Much of it is probably true, but it is also propaganda. Lets face it, what a better way to build support for your cause then by saying "They tortured me for hours..." It is another form of emotional appeal for support.

If you don't want the pain, tell them what they want to know...

 

[Edcrab]

If you don't want the pain, tell them what they want to know...

Even if you have no knowledge of whatever the hell they're demanding of you? Regardless of how often they electrocture your gonads, you can't tell them what you don't know.

I fully accept that many of the alleged victims will, bluntly, be lying, but considering how men have been held for years without charge I'm certainly not happy with the situations.

 

[bliink]

Call me whatever, but that is what i would do out of blind rage.

There are anger-management classes you can attend if you feel you are liable to fly into a fit of rage and torture someone to death.

 

[Calanen]

There are anger-management classes you can attend if you feel you are liable to fly into a fit of rage and torture someone to death.

I think a lot of people say, if X touched my family I'd kill them etc .....but few would actually go through with it. Mostly they are just coping with the loss of their loved one to be worried about locking and loading and killing the bad guy. Later on in court, its not uncommon for the victim's family to want to bash the accused. But we just cannot live like that. If we are to summarily execute on a long list of people that have wronged us, the streets just turn into war zones.

And in the end, if people were permitted to kill whoever they wanted - you would not be here typing this today, probably.

 

[Kebean PFC]

If he hurt my g/f or family i would do it and no i don't need anger management classes.

If someone hurt your family, you would just sit there... ho hum, all in a day... i dont think so. Nice bliink, but i think you missed the point

EDIT: Yes i would, and i know it sounds dumb, because i have not been placed in that position. But i would at least try. The US legal system is so f***ed up that if a man broke into my house and shot my family, he could sue me for breaking his arm as he ran away.

 

[Korgoth]

Its proven that in most of the torture cases, they aren't doing it for informational purposes, read abu ghraib, those soldiers were dehumanizing the enemy, makiing themselves feel better about what they were doing.. Its very phsycological. -I don't care how many typos I have in this post-

 

[kirovman]

Torture in any form is unacceptable. Look at the medieval, draconian days and methods, where torture was common place.
I don't really want to see a return to those days.

They use physical torture in Iran.
They use psychological torture in North Korea.

These countries are supposed to be our enemies?

If we advocate torture it's completely hypocritical.

Torture as a punishment, it is totally unnecessary, and it doesn't really achieve justice, does it?

Torture as a means to extract information, well I want to quote Reservoir Dogs here:

If you ****ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ****ing so!

I heard recently the CIA said they do not use torture as a means to extract information:

"Torture is not productive," Porter Goss said. "That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."

But he refused to say whether all methods used for interrogation until last year conformed to US law.

Although that's the intelligence community's response, I don't know about the miltary, etc.



The results of torture are dubious at best, and at worst you've beaten an innocent man to within an inch of his life, or perhaps killed him.
Yeah, torture's great, isn't it?

 

[Danimal]

Depends on what you're dealing with, but I voted phycological torture. As it is effects people the most.

 

[Calanen]

If he hurt my g/f or family i would do it and no i don't need anger management classes.

If someone hurt your family, you would just sit there... ho hum, all in a day... i dont think so. Nice bliink, but i think you missed the point

Thats what we have the police and the courts for. And why other people don't go around killing people that have committed crimes against them. Most sane people would call the cops. Some crazy mofos like you might try and be hard men and commit more crimes. I doubt it though....

Have you heard of the legal system by any chance? It applies to everyone. There is no right to go and kill a criminal and bypass the courts if they have wronged you in revenge, no matter what they have done.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Have you heard if you are in my home i can kill you, and as long as i can prove my or anothers life was in danger, i get off?

Have you heard of the legal system by any chance? It applies to everyone. There is no right to go and kill a criminal and bypass the courts if they have wronged you in revenge, no matter what they have done.

I am not an idiot, and the legal system is so flawed that a criminal could sue me becuase he hurt himself breaking in.
Hmmm no matter what they have done? You have never had yours or you friends life in real danger have you? Oh, wait, it is obvious by your holier that thou attitude... yes i have, i grew up in a shit area of town, had my house broken into twice, and had my family threatened. No, i didn't go aout hunting them, they didn't hurt me, or my family. Scared yes, angry, yes.

That said, i wouldnt kill someone becuase they broke into my house. But if the threatened me to where i felt my life was in danger, i would fell no remorse in killing them.