Is torture a legitimate and ethical tactic to determine guilt?

Question

Over 3000 innocent people were killed in a dastardly attack. People are beheaded and innocent women and children are bombed. So does the same standard of humane treatment apply to the people capable of this type of action?
This is an argument often presented to condone torture. My question is this.
If we capture someone and use torture to determine their guilt, how were we certain that they were this type of monster before we tortured them. Is torture legitimate for everyone we capture because we were attacked? They are not entitled to a trial because they are terrorist. Okay I won't argue that but unless they admitted to being terrorist under torture or were found guilty in a trial how did we know they were terrorist? If we think someone is a terrorist and torture them to force them to talk, then how are we sure that the human standard doesn't apply to them if they haven't confessed yet? Isn't it possible that we might torture someone who is innocent? Is that justice?

chilling: good question. Threat of death is defined as torture. Waterboarding simulates drowning and convinces the victim that their life is in immediate danger.

open4one: you have a valid point. I don't concede that torture is ethical under any condition but there is a huge difference between determining guilt and seeking intell. If guilt has not in some way been legitimately ascertained then whoever authorizes torture even for intell is simply making a judgment call about its necessity. Is there a person you would feel comfortable giving the authority to torture who they will as they see fit?

Answer 1

Don't confuse the idea of determining guilt with gaining actionable intelligence.

To determine guilt, no, it is not valid, nor particularly reliable. It simply stomps all over the concept of the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination. Use the right torture on me, and I'd probably confess to things that never happened if I thought it would make it stop. After you pull the first fingernail, I shot JR if you want me to have shot JR, and I also shot Abraham Lincoln, and I'm responsible for Global Warming, and I probably would claim to be the reason milk goes sour.

However, as a means to gain knowledge of future events, plans for which can be independently verified, the reliability and self-incrimination issues go away, and all you have left is the moral tradeoff between one person who intends to cause a lot of human suffering, and preventing that suffering.

Answer 2

I think the fact remains is that in order to defeat terrorism, we can't use the same things which DEFINES us as being a terrorist too.

Torture is one of the bread and butter instruments of choice for them--before they kill their captives.

So why are we doing what they are doing in secret, but denying it so openly--even though we still are doing it?

If you capture a criminal, should they not be tried for their crimes? What makes a terrorist any different? After all, we tried the bombers of the '93 WTC attack in federal court--and nothing bad happened.

We didn't lose our rights. We didn't torture or kill anyone. We certainly didn't invade on false pretense.

But now...? Everything's gone to hell in a handbasket. We've lost our rights as citizens, we're torturing people left and right, withholding habeus corpus, rendition flights, and we've invaded on the assumption that an impotent third-world country with the world's 5th largest oil reserves--WAS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

It's no justice when we do it back to the terrorists in spades. It just tells the other terrorists worldwide that the United States is no different than they are.

As a result, terrorism flourishes instead of diminishes.

But I don't believe Bush and company have caught onto this quite yet.

Answer 3

well, regarding the use of torture...it's a really stupid method of getting information; the person being tortured is simply going to say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear. one of my close friends was an army interrogator, and one night he demonstrated that he could, indeed, get real information without the use of torture. whether for 'intel' purposes or 'guilt determination' purposes, torture is an unreliable tool. now, as to the ethics? whether 1 person or 3000 died, we cannot allow OUR standards to deteriorate...is it justice we are after, or revenge? justice is nearly always imperfect; however, true vengeance is near-impossible...how may times can you kill someone? we need to take extreme care that we not become the same kind of monsters against whom we're fighting! the bottom line for me? in a world where there is so much horror, injustice, and lawlessness, this nation needs to stand up as the example of what a free and open nation can achieve...otherwise, what are we fighting about? cheap oil? 880 cable channels and disposable everything? we are capable of so much better...someone once said 'america will cease to be great when she ceases to be good'...i agree 100%

Answer 4

It has been found that torture is an ineffective method of extracting information; the victim will say or admit anything to make the pain stop. For the same reason, the information is unreliable because the victim says what they think the torturer wants to know, not what may be correct.

Answer 5

torture is not reliable to ascertain guilt or complicity, or to extract information - i would probably confess to anything, and implicate my mother too, under threat of having a hot iron rammed up my a**, for instance - but torture would be most useful as punishment after guilt is determined

Answer 6

Absolutely not. If we, as a society, say that certain things are illegal, then what separates us from the criminals if we lower ourselves to their level every time we want answers? It blurs the line between criminal and protector to the point where nobody is safe.
On a purely practical level, it's pointless because you cannot trust the confession of someone who has just been submitted to torture - they'll say anything just to make it stop.

Answer 7

Torture is neither legitimate (it is against the Geneva Convention) nor ethical.

The perpetration of a crime (such as you describe at the beginning of your question) does not justify another crime in response. This is tantamount to vigilantism - which (although we may sometimes sympathise with it) is neither legitimate nor ethical itself.

and, yes, you're right - history is littered with confessions of guilt under duress of tortue from innocent people - so it "proves" nothing other than finding a convenient scapegoat.

Answer 8

First off it depends on what you consider to be torture. Is keeping someone up for long periods of time interrogating them torture? Does it have to be something physical or is there mental torture such as putting soeone in a pitch dark room with strobe lights going for days is that torture? I heard someone make a good point about this water boring thing that's been in the news lately. We subject our military people to this in their training, are we torturing them? And if we do it to our own like we do is that really torture if we do it to an enemy?

Answer 9

Torture cannot be used effectively to determine guilt or innocence. If pain intense enough many of us will say anything to make it stop.

Answer 10

Torture is plain wrong regardless of the circumstances.