Evidence under torture?

Question

Is it right that evidence given under torture be used for the good of the western world.

Here's an example, you are a senior member of the Home office and information is given to you that a bomb attack is planned for parts of London.
However, this information was gathered from a suspected terrorist who was being tortured.

The information given would allow you to arrest the culprits before the event even though it may be classed as unethical.

The chances are that any case against the would be bombers would be kicked out of court due to the source of the evidence.
The liberal brigade would be berating you for using such evidence and accuse you of compliance with torture techniques.
The media would stir the public into screaming for your resignation and the opposition would make hay with your reputation.

You could potentially save hundreds of lives.

What would you do?

You're all missing the point. The evidence given was reliable, there are would be bombers, the question is, do you have the bottle to use that evidence or do you keep quiet about it.

I see someone mentioned using Honey to catch flies.
Ok so lets take it further:-
You are aware that something is going to happen tommorow, the Muslim in front of you has the information you need.
A honey trap will take days to set up and you dont have that much time.
The bucket of pigs urine you have on the floor will produce the information you need to save those hundreds of lives.

Now what do you do?

Random Man
I was waiting for that answer.
Your sense of fair play says send the torturers to prison yet your fair play disappears when you say act on the information the torture obtained.
You cannot have it both ways.

Answer 1

Their are some interesting points in your question,if evidence was presented to me, that I knew was factual and the use of that evidence would indubitably save innocent lives, most certainly, I would not hesitate to use it, As your question is, centred around the act of terrorism It is worth reminding everyone, terrorism is an act, of torture in it self, .

Answer 2

The torturers are looking for actionable information that they can use to prevent the attack. They are not trying to build a case against the terrorist in a court of law. So whether the admission can go to court is not their concern in this situation.

What they may be overlooking is that the terrorist may lie to stop the torture and the bomb squad would be deployed to the wrong location. In real life that is the big issue.

Answer 3

I see ur point and ok if the evidence already exists then it should be used, but really by using this kind of evidence it is saying that torture is 'ok'. If the major western countries all took the stance that they will never accept evidence that has been obtained by torture then surely this will help to deter other countries from the practice?

Anyway, how reliable is evidence from someone who has been tortured? It is not admissible in court in nearly all legal systems and hopefully never will be.

I don't think torture is ever justified, in any circumstances. And any who use this kind of evidence are as bad as the torturers.

Answer 4

I think that first, you do your best to determine that the person you are planning on torturing actually has any information that may prove useful. Then you institute the old,"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.", adage. All the BS surrounding sending Al Queda and innocents to places like Guantanamo Bay is reinforce the brutal stereotype they already believe! Under torture, most will tell you anything they think you want to hear. Those who are true to their cause will go to their graves without tipping their hand

Answer 5

I would rather save all those lives unless, maybe, I could save even more by not letting on that I knew (a bit like Winston Churchill did I suppose!).
However, you could use the information you got to do your research and find some evidence that you could use against the culprits.

Answer 6

Evidence under torture is hardly well sourced but it is a potential threat, the suspects whould be arrested and question (without use of torture) and released if there is not enough evidence to support the claim.

Answer 7

I would as Kamran said, agree to anything under torture if I thought the torture would stop.

We claim that we are more humane than the likes of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, but torturing suspects who go against our regime (yes regime if we are using torture to keep the peace), is no better than concentration camps used by the Nazis

Answer 8

Evidence under torture is suspect. Most people would confess to anything to keep the torture from continuing.

Having information gained under torture that has occurred, doesn't mean you can't put the people implicated under observation.

Answer 9

I believe the general public get too involved with the politics of war. We should concentrate on giving our troops the best support we can and just let those who command the troops do just that.....sitting at home spouting the rights and wrongs doesn't save lives..

If we hadn't broke a few rules in the previous wars where would we be now i wonder......

Answer 10

If you torture someone long enough the chances are they would admit to anything. You could never be sure that they were telling the truth and that is why it wouldn't be admissible in a court of law.