Can you defend the use of torture?

Question

I believe that to condone the use of torture is to render oneself liable to torture.
Those at present subject to torture are predominately 'suspects'. As the person subjected to torture is, in the end, prepared to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear, he may well implicate you. You as a suspect are then liable to torture.

I could expand on this but I think it conveys my general reasoning.

Can any of you convince me that torture should be used as an implement of state policy.

Let me expand on this.
I accept in some circumstances the use of torture can save lives.
If you believe that the ends justify the means, you argue the case for terrorism, genocide and a myriad of other crimes against humanity.
Once you advocate the use of torture as an instrument of state, it can then be used on anybody, for any thing. Torture will always prove a never-ending supply of people are guilty. That is what it is for.

O f those of you who have tried to justify torture, not one has produced a reasoned coherent argument. I remain unconvinced.
My thanks go to 'q answers', for providing the following link for those who have said- 'it depends how you define torture'.

http://www.irct.org/default.aspx?id=1474...

Answer 1

Everything in the law is a trade-off. The debate is always between whether the ends justify the means, or whether the integrity of the process is more important than a quick fix.

Torture is no different than anything else. Either it's allowed under the rules or it is not. If it's allowed under the rules -- legal or moral -- then there is no question of defending it. It's allowed. Many religious systems (especially older monotheistic religion) and many govts allow the use of torture, so there is nothing to defend.

So, that leaves two categories -- places where it's legal, but there are cultural (moral) prohibitions, and places where it is illegal.

If the culture is opposed to it, but it's legally allowed, then you are making a personal choice. Do you want to do something that is legal, that you morally oppose. And as with all moral issues, unless something is absolutely mandatory under the law, you always have a choice. Again, nothing to defend from a legal perspective. It's a matter of personal moral choice. And like any moral choice, the defense is simple -- moral choice.

Which leaves just places where it is illegal. Like the US, where torture is prohibited by the 8th Amendment, among other laws. So how do you defend using torture, if you believe the end justifies the means.....

That's where the balance comes into play. If something is illegal, and you do it anyway, there are consequences. That's the nature of the law. In the US, those laws prohibiting torture fall under the same category as other 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights -- loosely called civil rights.

Under US law, the consequences of the govt violating someone's civil rights it that the govt cannot use that evidence to prosecute someone, and in severe cases, cannot prosecute someone at all.

There are only two reasons that people would seek to justify torture -- enjoyment at watching the prisoner suffer, and the perceived need to get information from the prisoner that cannot be gotten through legal means. So, we're back to the debate of whether the ends justify the means.

There is nothing that prevents the US from torturing prisoners. However, if the US does so, they are not allowed to prosecute the person for any crimes. That's the legal trade-off.

If the US violates the law, they lose the ability to prosecute someone else for violating the law. So, if the US wants to torture someone because that person has information necessary to stop other people from getting hurt or killed -- that's the choice. Get the information, and not prosecute the person, or prosecute the person and not get the information.

Everything in the law is a trade-off. That's the trade-off when it comes to torture. Or, we change the laws (the constitution) to make it valid -- which makes us no better than those we claim to oppose. Which is just another trade-off.

Answer 2

The question isn't whether a person condones torture it is how torture should be defined. To a leftist, an American making terrorists get naked and lay on each other is torture. That wasn't even considered hazing 15 yrs ago. (not that I condone such unprofessional behavior). So if torture is defined as feeding prisoners better food than their guards such as Gitmo then we have to work on our defition. If we are going to have leftists condemning Americans for looking sideways at a terrorist but saying "it's their culture and we have no right to condemn it" or " they are only doing it because of what we have done to then" when a terrorist burns innocent people or chops their heads off slowly or any of the other disgusting things they do then we need to do some real soul searching as a nation.

Answer 3

Torture is never a justifiable option within a civilised society.
Those that allow torture of prisoners encourage the build up of further opposition.
The result is terrorism.

Answer 4

the British embassy justifies British citizens being tortured if this is legal in the country they are in (most of the middle east you have been warned)there job is to make sure you are treated the same as the locals and if you give them a phone num. they will make a call for you that is all they offer unless you are representing business interest

Answer 5

No...never. It's never justified.

Jean Moulin was brutally tortured by the Gestapo for days following his capture in 1943. He never gave the Germans anything of value about the French Resistance despite the fact that he had more than any other figure given its unity of purpose. He went to his death never betraying his comrades.

Those who embrace torture surrender themselves to the darkest impulses of our nature...and you all know who delights in human darkness don't you??

I'm sure you do...

How does the saying go..."What does it profit a man to save himself and lose his soul..."

You get the point.

Answer 6

Do you REALLY believe that a man or terrorist, who can tape explosives to his body, knowing what will happen, will 'give it up' if you torture him?
What reality do you live in?
If it worked? maybe
But it doesn't, so why use it?
And what about The Geneva Convention, and the abuse of prisoners? Oh, excuse me, my mistake! That is only for Americans! Peoples of other countries have no rights, especially our enemies?Right
Torture is out of the question, nor would Jesus have condoned it!

Answer 7

Do you endorse this type of thing?

"I have seen more than 600 prisoners in the investigation spot at... ...whom appeared like skeletons due to hunger and torture, as each prisoner was given only half a bowel of food per day and were electrified on sensitive parts of their bodies in addition to being subject to beatings with iron tools on their heads, feet, and sensitive parts of the body after hanging them from their hands and legs and be threatened with cutting their body parts and depriving them from food for days. All that was accompanied with swearing and denominational and immoral reviles. I was subject to all this torture and assault. "

Answer 8

I have always opposed torture, but if you believe it would stop al Queda or the Taliban from torturing you then you are being extremely naive.

Harsh interrogations have been used by all forces for generations & have gathered information that have saved tens of thousands.

Answer 9

Torture should never be used. It's wrong and immoral and highly unreliable as a way of soliciting information. (Altho', at times I may feel like I could torture someone, when it came right down to it I couldn't do it. I accidentally killed a mockingbird once by firing a BB rifle at it never really intending to hit it. I agonized over that for weeks.

Answer 10

The only way I would condone torture,is if the government agents administering it were absolutely positive that the victim had information that he/or his comrades had a nuclear device and are going to set it off,and that is the only means to retrieve the information.Then of course do what you must to stop this!