Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

I think what's best given our current morality is to ask the suspect if he's still willing to mantain the claim that he did it if that leads to him being tortured to obtain the information. If he is, then you can torture him.

But all this is too much trouble. I'd say stick with the law the way it currently is, which is murky enough already.

By the way, I see where you're going with this.

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

For those who say yes, I ask whether you would be in favor of changing the law for cases like these. Or would it be better to keep the laws as they are and simply look away in these very rare cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should not be codified into law EXCEPT that jury nullification needs to be a widely understood and accepted concept. Creating a situation where the actions of the torturers expect to be tried and can only be acquitted by disinterested parties will do a much better job of keeping abuses in check and continue to represent changing social norms better than laws which must be either rigidly written leaving deserving but technically incorrect cases out, or broadly written, leaving loopholes and expectations to win.

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

Does the torture cause irreparable physical damage or temporary pain?

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

I think the only answer is that if it is your call (you're vic macky or whatever, the cop in charge)

a) you will have to do whatever you have to including torture to save the girl
b) you will have to turn yourself in for breaking the law and throw yourself on the mercy of the court and explain the mitigating circumstances, but accept your punishment.
b1) it would be acceptable to wait and see if the authorities look the other way and give you a pass becauses they understand the dilemma you were in.


In my opinion the real question is, if it is within your power to avert something like this, to save a human life, and you do not do it because you are afraid of the consequences, that act of omission may be totally immoral. A lot of it depends on the details. But the point is that sometimes in order to do the right thing you must be willing to suffer the consequences.

I guess another point is that rules or bureaucracy will never be sufficient without morally courageous men, although this example may not be the best to illustrate it.

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

There's pretty obviously cases where torture is okay, just extrapolate to it being a nuclear bomb his hidden.

but as a tactic in war its a really bad plan unless legitimising torture is one of the aims.

chez

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

David,

This was a great movie.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...og/scorpio.jpg

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

The fact that this country is having this discussion is an indication of how far we have sunk.

During the Cold War, when the battle of ideas was so important, the US was very careful about its image and tried hard to distinguish itself from the Soviet block. Twenty years ago, it was unthinkable for mainstream politicos to sanction torture. America did not do that sort of thing (openly).

We should take a page from the gun rights folks. They go postal over any small change in gun laws, arguing it's one small step closer to confiscation. Accepting torture whittles down our humanity. Next it will be: "this torture is so labor intensive and it gives our troops nightmares. Let's just send those terrorists to the showers. And the village that produces them, so their families don't have to suffer torture, because a quick death is so much more humane."

Torture destroys democracy, which is far worse than whatever we might find out.

[ QUOTE ]
would it be better to keep the laws as they are and simply look away in these very rare cases.

[/ QUOTE ] Yea. As long as they are truly rare.

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here I say yes to torture.
2. the captured soldiers aren't innocent. They volunteered to fight.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, consider the same question as the serial killer case, but make one change: the buried person is a cop who was trying to apprehend the killer. Would you then also say torture shouldn't be used, because the cop isn't innocent since he volunteered to perform police duty?

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

I don't see what's wrong with it in Iraq. We are fighting a dirty war against cowards who hide among the civilian populace. If they see us coming, they drop their weapons and act like innocents and they have no qualms with murder.

The Russians have been fighting terrorism a hell of a lot longer than we have, and Bush was pretty much negligent to reject Russian help. Chechnya is the Russian Iraq.

Re: Reopening the Torture Debate
 

As chezlaw points out, you can always up the ante such that it becomes easier to justify torture. The nuclear bomb is a good one. Maybe in the future there might be a weapon capable of destroying the whole planet. Still no torture?

I don't like the idea of "looking the other way." Change the law for extreme cases. Make the process as non political as possible.

Torturing people might change the situation in the future. Would the confessed serial killer be so willing to admit what he has done if torture was on the menu? Lawyers would have an easy job raising some doubt in all but the most extreme cases.

The civilized world has shed much blood attaining fundamental protections. They should not be removed lightly.


DY