'Murica! (253 Viewers)

[Raz]

Sure.

Have you ever seen Unthinkable? It is supposed to be about a moral dilemma. Samuel L. Jackson tortures a terrorist to get information about three bomb locations. The bombs are placed in major American cities. In this case I'm all about utilitarianism. You choose the moral action that results in the least amount of suffering. Millions die if you don't resort to torture. One suffers if you do. I say go ahead and torture the man. However, if you manage to retrieve the bombs and the only evidence you have against this man (unlikely, but it happens) is his confession which you got through torture, you cannot convict him.

But all of this is assuming that the information you gather is reliable.

But assuming your son is kidnapped you torture your neighbour who you assume should have info, because he's usually at home at this time. So you torture and he doesn't have info, but says anything you want to hear just so you stop. In the end you torture an innocent victim.

Even if you have terrorists that knows something, there is no reason to believe that they didn't add a lot of irrelivant information that torturers just wants to hear in order to stop this. There are quite a few studies that say torture is very ineffective method to gather intelligence. Not to mention what kind of sick freaks the people are or become when given the power to torture, which in a lot of cases are just not intelligence gatherers but pure psycho freaks.

As you say we can act high and mighty, but where do we draw the line, how many people is acceptable to torture before you get 'good' intelligence?

Anyway, it's kind of weird hearing from you that you are in favor for torture

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

But assuming your son is kidnapped you torture your neighbour who you assume should have info, because he's usually at home at this time. So you torture and he doesn't have info, but says anything you want to hear just so you stop. In the end you torture an innocent victim.

Even if you have terrorists that knows something, there is no reason to believe that they didn't add a lot of irrelivant information that torturers just wants to hear in order to stop this. There are quite a few studies that say torture is very ineffective method to gather intelligence. Not to mention what kind of sick freaks the people are or become when given the power to torture, which in a lot of cases are just not intelligence gatherers but pure psycho freaks.

As you say we can act high and mighty, but where do we draw the line, how many people is acceptable to torture before you get 'good' intelligence?

Anyway, it's kind of weird hearing from you that you are in favor for torture

Well it is. And that's the problem with it. But if your son is kidnapped and you're given the possibility of torturing the suspected abductor, you will. Any nation that is given the possibility to torture a terrorist who is aiming to kill thousands will do so too.

As for drawing the line, like I said I look at it from a utilitarian perspective. You go for the least amount of suffering.

 

[Raz]

Well it is. And that's the problem with it. But if your son is kidnapped and you're given the possibility of torturing the suspected abductor, you will. Any nation that is given the possibility to torture a terrorist who is aiming to kill thousands will do so too.

As for drawing the line, like I said I look at it from a utilitarian perspective. You go for the least amount of suffering.

But it's a vigilante justice this way? Like if your child is molested you want to castrate the fucker. But you were against that. You say our society is kind of ready fo such things as basic income yet are for the most barbaric things imaginable.

So you're for torture 98 innocent and 1 guilty to save 100 innocent? How do you measure suffering?

 

[Seven]

But it's a vigilante justice this way? Like if your child is molested you want to castrate the fucker. But you were against that. You say our society is kind of ready fo such things as basic income yet are for the most barbaric things imaginable.

No, I am definitely against vigilante justice under all circumstances. What I'm saying here is that torture might be justifiable if a lot of lives (or sometimes even just one) could be saved by it. It isn't right, it definitely isn't justice, but it's completely understandable and for me at least might sometimes even be the right choice to make.

However let me make one thing clear: torture can never, under no circumstances, be lawful. I am just saying I sometimes don't care about the law .

 

[Raz]

That's why I said it's strange that you say that, but then again I didn't took into account that you're a lawyer

 

[Ocelot]

Torture might work from a utilitarian perspective in some very, very specific situations.

As a general practice it should absolutely be banned, one of the core principles of a modern justice system. I also don't know any actual case where torture has been succesfully used to prevent the suffering of thousands of others, it basically exists just a theoretical situation.

Not saying your line of thinking is wrong, but its actual usage is extremely slim, and it can lead to some very dangerous slopes pretty quickly looking at Abu Ghraib and the recent CIA torture program.

 

[Raz]

Yeah, that was some unlucky guys.

I just don't get it with rape. Surely there is more to it then just torture.

 

[Seven]

Torture might work from a utilitarian perspective in some very, very specific situations.

As a general practice it should absolutely be banned, one of the core principles of a modern justice system. I also don't know any actual case where torture has been succesfully used to prevent the suffering of thousands of others, it basically exists just a theoretical situation.

Not saying your line of thinking is wrong, but its actual usage is extremely slim, and it can lead to some very dangerous slopes pretty quickly looking at Abu Ghraib and the recent CIA torture program.

Of course. Which is why I think it should be banned. But that's something different from saying don't ever use it.

 

[Raz]

Of course. Which is why I think it should be banned. But that's something different from saying don't ever use it.

Isn't it banned already? Serious question, is it banned all over? Not including ISIS and the such.

 

[Seven]

Isn't it banned already? Serious question, is it banned all over? Not including ISIS and the such.

Because of its widespread use in the states I assumed it wasn't banned there.

 

[Ocelot]

Pretty sure it's banned in general, there've been exceptions created for that CIA program though. Not sure whether they're still in effect.

 

[Seven]

Pretty sure it's banned in general, there've been exceptions created for that CIA program though. Not sure whether they're still in effect.

Regardless it is obvious a lot of countries and a lot of intelligence services will torture people for quite some time to come.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

As they should

 

[Raz]

Why not just nuke regions?

 

[Ocelot]

Unles we're talking about some really really specific situation, no they shouldn't.

 

[Seven]

As they should

Well, I don't disagree with you there. I know my position on this is not popular (especially not among European lawyers as you can imagine), but it is nuanced and I believe there is something to be said for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Unles we're talking about some really really specific situation, no they shouldn't.

These situation do happen you know. The world is a big place. Of course it has to be restricted to a minimum. And I'd agree when people say that several US intelligence agencies or army branches have grossly misbehaved. But saying that torture is always wrong under all circumstances.. is not something I would do.

 

[Raz]

In theory yes, but how do you manage those who give green light to torture or not?

 

[Seven]

In theory yes, but how do you manage those who give green light to torture or not?

With great difficulty.

 

[Ocelot]

Well, I don't disagree with you there. I know my position on this is not popular (especially not among European lawyers as you can imagine), but it is nuanced and I believe there is something to be said for it.

- - - Updated - - -



These situation do happen you know. The world is a big place. Of course it has to be restricted to a minimum. And I'd agree when people say that several US intelligence agencies or army branches have grossly misbehaved. But saying that torture is always wrong under all circumstances.. is not something I would do.

But seriously, do you actually know of any situation where torture was applied in accordance with your standards?

The closest one I know of is a German kidnapper who was threatened with torture (not actually tortured) to tell the police where the kidnapped child was (the child turned out to be long dead).

 

[Seven]

But seriously, do you actually know of any situation where torture was applied in accordance with your standards?

The closest one I know of is a German kidnapper who was threatened with torture (not actually tortured) to tell the police where the kidnapped child was (the child turned out to be long dead).

Lol. That's the case that's always discussed at law school.

Germany was convicted by the ECHR because of it BTW.