Is Torture Ever Permissible?

[magekillr]

Suppose that US officials have as much evidence as anyone could have for believing that: (1) there are ten hydrogen bombs hidden in the ten most populous US cities; (2) the bombs are powerful enough to decimate each city leaving no survivors and extensive radioactive fallout; (3) the bombs are set to go off in 24 hours; (4) it is not possible to evacuate any of the cities within 24 hours; (5) a conspirator in custody knows where each of the bombs is and will reveal this information quickly enough, if tortured, for officials to find and disarm each of the bombs; and (6) there is no other way to avoid having the bombs detonate.

 

--Kenneth Himma

 

 

 

Many flaws in this thinking, even beyond the "realism" of such a situation, but is torture ever acceptable under any circumstance?

[ElkNight]

Yes it is.

 

[hide=?]Suppose that US officials have as much evidence as anyone could have for believing that: (1) there are ten hydrogen bombs hidden in the ten most populous US cities; (2) the bombs are powerful enough to decimate each city leaving no survivors and extensive radioactive fallout; (3) the bombs are set to go off in 24 hours; (4) it is not possible to evacuate any of the cities within 24 hours; (5) a conspirator in custody knows where each of the bombs is and will reveal this information quickly enough, if tortured, for officials to find and disarm each of the bombs; and (6) there is no other way to avoid having the bombs detonate.[/hide]

 

Who WOULDNT torture for that?!?!

[warri0r45]

Given that scenario, yes, absolutely. Millions of people's lives > the psychological/physical well being of one person.

 

 

 

It's obviously a more difficult question when you inject reality into the situation though. If you just have a bunch of detainees which are suspected of terrorist activity and they haven't had a trial, then no, I don't think torture is a great idea. Sure, on the odd occasion you might catch someone who knows intricate details of planned major terrorist activities, but that seems unlikely and I'm not sure torturing everyone you detain to find that illusive person is justified.

 

 

 

There's also the problem of being true to your example of freedom and justice when fighting people like terrorists. If you don't, then all you have to stand up for and defend is a bunch of empty gestures.

[ThurinEthir]

Reminds me of Jack Bauer/24.

 

And yes. Like Warri0r said, "Millions of people's lives > the psychological/physical well being of one person."

 

Unless there's some other way to gain the information needed. Torture should nearly always be a last resort. (I'm sure there's some exception, that's why I put "nearly"...)

[magekillr]

Given that scenario, yes, absolutely. Millions of people's lives > the psychological/physical well being of one person.

 

 

 

It's obviously a more difficult question when you inject reality into the situation though. If you just have a bunch of detainees which are suspected of terrorist activity and they haven't had a trial, then no, I don't think torture is a great idea. Sure, on the odd occasion you might catch someone who knows intricate details of planned major terrorist activities, but that seems unlikely and I'm not sure torturing everyone you detain to find that illusive person is justified.

 

 

 

There's also the problem of being true to your example of freedom and justice when fighting people like terrorists. If you don't, then all you have to stand up for and defend is a bunch of empty gestures.

 

 

 

Where do you draw the line when using pure numbers for your justification? The reason that the numbers argument runs into trouble is because, as you stated in the latter paragraph, is that what if the authorities think that one person out of 5 has the information. Do you torture all of them for that one person? It's only 5, 4 being innocent, to save millions. Where is the line drawn? Why is 1 any less frivolous than 5, when compared with millions?

[warri0r45]

Given that scenario, yes, absolutely. Millions of people's lives > the psychological/physical well being of one person.

 

 

 

It's obviously a more difficult question when you inject reality into the situation though. If you just have a bunch of detainees which are suspected of terrorist activity and they haven't had a trial, then no, I don't think torture is a great idea. Sure, on the odd occasion you might catch someone who knows intricate details of planned major terrorist activities, but that seems unlikely and I'm not sure torturing everyone you detain to find that illusive person is justified.

 

 

 

There's also the problem of being true to your example of freedom and justice when fighting people like terrorists. If you don't, then all you have to stand up for and defend is a bunch of empty gestures.

 

 

 

Where do you draw the line when using pure numbers for your justification? The reason that the numbers argument runs into trouble is because, as you stated in the latter paragraph, is that what if the authorities think that one person out of 5 has the information. Do you torture all of them for that one person? It's only 5, 4 being innocent, to save millions. Where is the line drawn? Why is 5 any less frivolous than 1, when compared with millions?

 

 

 

I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but even if it's 5 people, 4 being innocent, I'd torture to get the information (assuming all the other details of the hypothetical hold true).

 

 

 

The problem for me doesn't come with comparing numbers, but in the uncertainty of whether you'll get anything out of torturing people. What if you torture hundreds and get nothing of any use whatsoever? That's my main concern.

[Zierro]

If someone thinks that there is no value attached to the human life, then there should be no value attached to theirs.

[magekillr]

Yes, that's one of my many qualms with torturing under any circumstance, but this hypothetical deals with that. What it doesn't deal with is the lengths that one would go. What about the terrorists' children and family? We don't have the terrorist, but he agrees to comply once we torture his loved ones.

[pryomancer]

When you provide absurd hypothetical situations, then yes, you could justify torturing a baby with a pair of pliers to get the info you need.

[Ezz]

Utilitarianism, if more people benefit from it than people lose from it, do it (sorta).

[warri0r45]

Yes, that's one of my many qualms with torturing under any circumstance, but this hypothetical deals with that. What it doesn't deal with is the lengths that one would go. What about the terrorists' children and family? We don't have the terrorist, but he agrees to comply once we torture his loved ones.

 

 

 

On some level it seems cruel and unjust, but I still think it would be more unjust to let millions of people die.

 

 

 

The hypothetical you posed breaks the issue down pretty simply - either you tolerate the torture of one/some and save the lives of millions or you save one/some from torture and tolerate the death of millions. From that basic scenario it's a pretty easy choice for me.

[EdgedThesis]

Permissible? No.

 

 

 

Not once we invent the MindJack, at least.

 

 

 

It's coming. But with that comes a whole other host of controversies...

[osutampa]

Most defintley. In this particular situation, they could hand me a pair of pliers and I would do it personally.

[Millard]

Torture will never be permissible by law but heck if that situation did arise and ones similar no doubt the majority of governments around the world would use torture. Bet most of them do it now anyway.

[mmmcannibalism]

ever permissible--yes

 

 

 

in this hypothetical--yes

 

 

 

in most real life--only as the last resort after the last resort

 

 

 

Very few things are ever anything, killing someone is "always" wrong but obviously if someone is about to shoot your family and you could stop it by killing them choosing to kill them wouldnt be wrong.

[deathdrow]

torture would only happen as a last resort, if many many lives were at stake.

[venomai]

If we deem torture permissible for such extreme situations, then we must also train professional torturers. An amateur torturer may not be able to acquire the information fast enough, or at all (not to mention psychological damage to the torturer). Of course, this training would require actual torture (and often not for such extreme situations).

 

 

 

It becomes evident that this isn't simply a question of "extreme hypothetical situations."

 

 

 

It's obviously a more difficult question when you inject reality into the situation though.

 

Reality is the major criticism to these arguments.

 

 

 

How often do these 'ticking time bomb' scenario occur in reality? Often enough to justify the training of professional torturers? It's become a common feature of television, regardless of the actual likelihood of the scenario.

 

 

 

"Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ticking time bomb situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week." - a creator of 24 [1]

 

 

 

It's very difficult to find any prominent 'ticking time bomb' scenarios that could be resolved solely by torture, let alone enough of them to justify the training of professional torturers.

 

 

 

Torture is an unreliable and barbaric manner of acquiring information, and I do not support it.

[magekillr]

Let's not stop there, venomai. We must also institutionalize it completely. Firstly, medical schools around the world must be forced to teach about torture, and its effects on the human body to determine when one has been tortured "too much". Surely a doctor must be present to determine if we've gone so far that we'd kill him, no? What about offering grants to find the best torture methods among researchers?

[warri0r45]

If we deem torture permissible for such extreme situations, then we must also train professional torturers. An amateur torturer may not be able to acquire the information fast enough, or at all (not to mention psychological damage to the torturer). Of course, this training would require actual torture (and often not for such extreme situations).

 

 

 

I don't think so. You could probably train a "professional torturer" by training them in psychology and the techniques of torture without engaging in it.

 

 

 

You do bring up a good point with torture being unreliable, though. I tend to think that's true, but I'll look into it a bit more. For now, here's a debate on the issue (check out the video):

 

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military ... 2-02.html#

[venomai]

I don't think so. You could probably train a "professional torturer" by training them in psychology and the techniques of torture without engaging in it.

 

Desensitization, which requires, among other things, engaging in torture, is necessary for professional torture in these scenarios.

 

 

 

Jessica Wolfendale wrote on the topic in Training Torturers: A Critique of the "Ticking Bomb" Argument.

 

 

 

[hide=]the training process of these specialised units [torturers] involves intense, highly stressful, and often brutal exercises. Aside from the more conventional weapons and fitness training, trainees are subjected to the techniques of psychological torture, a process which is extremely distressing and humiliating and can result in dissociation and deep anxiety. (35) Despite the severity of this training and the suffering that it can cause to trainees, this training is very effective in desensitizing trainees to the infliction and the endurance of suffering. (36) New trainees become desensitized to their own suffering, and when they in their turn play the "torturer" in the stress inoculation training they learn to be desensitized to the infliction of pain. This desensitization reduces soldiers' empathetic reaction to physical suffering and thereby makes the infliction of pain and humiliation on the enemy psychologically easier. Given that the ticking bomb torturer might have to inflict incredibly brutal tortures without flinching, he must be thoroughly desensitised to the infliction of pain and must not be hampered by feelings of empathy or sympathy for the suspect-in the ticking bomb scenario there would be no time for hesitation. The Khmer Rouge Manual makes the same point:

 

 

 

"is necessary to avoid any question or hesitancy or half-heartedness of not daring to do torture, which makes it impossible to get answers to our questions from our enemies, which slows down and delays our work ... it is necessary to hold steadfastly to a stance of not being half-hearted or hesitant. We must be absolute. Only thus, can we work to good effect." (37)

 

 

 

The basic training described above is only part of the process, however. Despite the brutality of the Special Forces training, torturers still need time to get used to their work. One Chilean ex-torturer described this process:

 

 

 

"When you first start doing this job, it is hard ... you hide yourself and cry, so nobody can see you. Later on, you don't cry, you only feel sad ... And after ... not wanting to ... but wanting to, you start getting used to it. Yes, definitely, there comes a moment when you feel nothing about what you are doing." (38)

 

 

 

Torturers, if they are to be effective and efficient, must "feel nothing" about what they are doing.[/hide]

 

 

 

It's one thing to learn how to torture another person, but it's another thing entirely to actually torture them.

[Omar]

1 person versus millions? You do whatever it takes. I just hope someone would be willing to do it.

[Quoi_Tu]

I saw on The Daily Show (not horribly reliable) an interview with an ex-interregator who was saying that the majority of the times violent or physical torture is not needed and just trying to essientially become friends with the suspect or prisoner is more effective in getting information. Now, that might not work for all prisoners, but is definitely a more humane approach. I believe the guy wrote a book too, but the title escapes me.

[i_love_burritos]

In this case absolutely.

 

 

 

But, honestly, who gives a damn ?

 

You have to remember why these people are facing torture. They are endangering other human lives, and are often comprimising the nation's security.

 

 

 

I do believe torture is appropriate if it threatens other lives, but in the case of, where money/drugs/guns and other valuable goods are concerned, unless they are directly the cause, no.

[warri0r45]

I don't think so. You could probably train a "professional torturer" by training them in psychology and the techniques of torture without engaging in it.

 

Desensitization, which requires, among other things, engaging in torture, is necessary for professional torture in these scenarios.

 

 

 

Jessica Wolfendale wrote on the topic in Training Torturers: A Critique of the "Ticking Bomb" Argument.

 

 

 

[hide=]the training process of these specialised units [torturers] involves intense, highly stressful, and often brutal exercises. Aside from the more conventional weapons and fitness training, trainees are subjected to the techniques of psychological torture, a process which is extremely distressing and humiliating and can result in dissociation and deep anxiety. (35) Despite the severity of this training and the suffering that it can cause to trainees, this training is very effective in desensitizing trainees to the infliction and the endurance of suffering. (36) New trainees become desensitized to their own suffering, and when they in their turn play the "torturer" in the stress inoculation training they learn to be desensitized to the infliction of pain. This desensitization reduces soldiers' empathetic reaction to physical suffering and thereby makes the infliction of pain and humiliation on the enemy psychologically easier. Given that the ticking bomb torturer might have to inflict incredibly brutal tortures without flinching, he must be thoroughly desensitised to the infliction of pain and must not be hampered by feelings of empathy or sympathy for the suspect-in the ticking bomb scenario there would be no time for hesitation. The Khmer Rouge Manual makes the same point:

 

 

 

"is necessary to avoid any question or hesitancy or half-heartedness of not daring to do torture, which makes it impossible to get answers to our questions from our enemies, which slows down and delays our work ... it is necessary to hold steadfastly to a stance of not being half-hearted or hesitant. We must be absolute. Only thus, can we work to good effect." (37)

 

 

 

The basic training described above is only part of the process, however. Despite the brutality of the Special Forces training, torturers still need time to get used to their work. One Chilean ex-torturer described this process:

 

 

 

"When you first start doing this job, it is hard ... you hide yourself and cry, so nobody can see you. Later on, you don't cry, you only feel sad ... And after ... not wanting to ... but wanting to, you start getting used to it. Yes, definitely, there comes a moment when you feel nothing about what you are doing." (38)

 

 

 

Torturers, if they are to be effective and efficient, must "feel nothing" about what they are doing.[/hide]

 

 

 

It's one thing to learn how to torture another person, but it's another thing entirely to actually torture them.

 

 

 

Good point, but couldn't they just watch videos of torture without engaging in it? Or perhaps they need to get over that psychological hump of doing the act themselves.

[BlueLancer]

I would agree, if not for the near-fact that "the ticking bomb scenario does not exist". It's so unplausible and dumb it's only fit for a hollywood movie. It has only existed in a smaller form in much, much smaller plastic explosive cases involving less skilled people or even amateurs. A terrorist organization with enough money to even get ahold of a nuclear weapon would never leave such big security holes in their plan.

 

 

 

There are hundreds of thousands of desperate humans who will give their own life for taking 50 lives in a war zone, and have done so, and do at the moment in countries like Iraq... Why wouldn't someone stay with an atomic bomb personally to make sure it detonates considering the personal glory? The scenario is for fiction and video games. It's like when James Bond always hits a straight flush in his movies.

 

 

 

The chance is staggeringly low because the plan is so horrible. Why risk the entire operation with a lenghty multi-hour waiting period just to have a team of explosions specialists disarm the bomb? A person willing to be even remotely associated with such an atrocity would have no problem dying with the blast him/herself, and the architechts of the attack would probably be thousands of miles away from the radius

 

 

 

There's a good article on torture and the "scenario" in this article (24 is one of my favourite TV shows, I just linked to the article to make people think). It's a logically flawed plan. Torture to find an alleged 'ticking time bomb' is ridiculous (but for a large nuclear weapons cache/inactive storage intended to be used for mass civilian casualties, it could be justified)