Torture..

[Chas]

I would certainly try everything else first, but I would torture him as a last resort.

you have 2 hours or your daughter dies !

Obviously, everything possible within the constraints of the situation.

---

How do you get your daughter back? or don't you?

I would leave that up to professional interrogators. They've got an enviable track record of getting positive results. And if they don't, how can you be positive that 2 hours of torture is going to break anyone? You spend two hours and one minute torturing this man and he doesn't give you the information, and your daughter dies anyway.

Or two hours of interrogation yields nothing.

Now, you got the death of your girl on your hands, as well as living with the knowledge that you tortured someone uselessly.

Boru

No, I don't. That's a really obtuse conclusion.

[lifesagift]

You're in a war zone, the professional negotiaters are 3 hours away... your daughter dies in 2 hours if you don't get the postcode!

---

How about bribery over torture?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You're in a war zone, the professional negotiaters are 3 hours away... your daughter dies in 2 hours if you don't get the postcode!

---

How about bribery over torture?

I'm not sure I'd have time to interrogate anyone about anything, seeing as I'm chasing after these goal posts you keep moving. I'll make it simple for you: I would not torture anyone for any thing under any conditions to obtain any result, reward or information.

Is that clear? No torture, ever.

Boru

---

No, I don't. That's a really obtuse conclusion.

I don't see how. You failed to save your daughter (and who wouldn't want to save the life of their own child) and you tortured a man and did not get the results you sought.

Either of these would be tough to live with, don't you think?

Boru

[Chas]

No, I don't. That's a really obtuse conclusion.

I don't see how. You failed to save your daughter (and who wouldn't want to save the life of their own child) and you tortured a man and did not get the results you sought.

Either of these would be tough to live with, don't you think?

Boru

I said I would use torture as a last resort - did you miss that?

[Violet]

What do people think about torture...?

Waterboarding.. is horrible...

And then there's the position that you might get, not the truth, but the words you want to hear !!

But for me, if you have the guy who has planted bomb, can you find out where the bomb is? What if your captive has your daughter locked up in a box.. is torture right to find out where she is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nvpTkFZakY

^___^ I like that clip.

Pretty much just this: torture is a gamble with someone's psychology. Might give vital intel, might misinform/lead into a trap, might waste time, might break a person such that any information gleaned is in significant question.

That would depend on my estimation of the bomb holder... are they a 'soldier' who would give their life for this? Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong... but my knowledge of human psychology is extensive, as is my knowledge of torture. I would do whatever is necessary to retrieve my daughter and/or disarm/remove the bomb.

---

You're in a war zone, the professional negotiaters are 3 hours away... your daughter dies in 2 hours if you don't get the postcode!

---

How about bribery over torture?

"Professional negotiators" are fancy, but irrelevant to your current position. Is the girl worth whatever would be gained if one lets her go? Maybe.

My rule? Hostages are always dead already. If they come out of the situation alive, well that's nifty... but contesting for them is a no-win position for yourself.

[Heywood]

What is torture?

If torture is causing physical pain as punishment or to force someone to say or do something then waterboarding isn't torture. It really sucks to be water boarded.....but its not painful.

If torture is causing mental or physical discomfort as punishment or to force someone to say or do something then waterboarding is torture. But being in prison would cause me mental and physical discomfort...so if I use this definition I have to conclude that incarceration is also torture.

I accept both definitions.

I have no qualms about incarcerating people and since incarceration is torture(it is because it satisfies an acceptible definition of torture), then If I am honest with myself I have to conclude I don't have any qualms about torturing people.

The real question for me is how much torture is appropriate, and I think that is dependent on the situation.

[Minimalist]

[Faith No More]

Torture is something that should never be used in a legalized, official manner, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it on some son-of-a-bitch that had strapped my son to a bomb.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't see how. You failed to save your daughter (and who wouldn't want to save the life of their own child) and you tortured a man and did not get the results you sought.

Either of these would be tough to live with, don't you think?

Boru

I said I would use torture as a last resort - did you miss that?

Yes, and I never said otherwise. *puzzled*

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you have the guy who has you daughter..... she's in a shed somewhere, hooked up to a bomb... it's going off in 2 hours....
You want the guy to tell you where..

But no torture?

If I were that guy, I'd send you to a place that took two hours and five minutes to get to, end my torture early, and still get to laugh as you learn of your daughter's death.

The problem with these scenarios is that they all assume that the detainee is always truthful.

And setting aside any utilitarian considerations (thin though they are), it's morally reprehensible. (For the theists whetting their words about moral absolutism in an atheist, I'll just refer you to the Golden Rule and let you figure it out.) Torture is morally reprehensible and ought not be practiced at any time on any person. It is sanctioned sadism which dehumanizes both participants.