Used to be the Inquisition felt it was the lessor evil to torture someone to keep them from hell.
The Pilgrims tortured witches to extract confessions. So he's in 'good' company. Religion has a history of using torture. Ask any six year old forced to sit through a long sermon.
posted on March 10, 2003 07:03:01 AM new
Torture is a very useful determinator of truth or innocence but we do it wrong. The accused is not supposed to be tortured to death or tortured until they give a satisfactory response, they are supposed to be given a specified course of pain - one known by all participants aforehand. When the chosen torture, or examination, begins the subject knows that he or she will feel no pain or discomfort if innocent or if the desired responses are given IF available so all they have to do to avoid misery is tell the truth or make admission of wrongdoing and they will be fine until the quick painless subsequent death to follow.
posted on March 10, 2003 10:11:24 AM new
Thanks Snowy - that's just the words that I was going to use.
One of many reasons why Torture is outlawed in civilized nations is that torture does not produce Truth - which is the goal. You threaten someone with enough horror and pain and they'll tell you anything that they can think of to avoid it. That could be Good information or Bad information. Anything to keep further pain away.
Current regeimes that use torture do so to extract "confessions"; such as, New York's Finest or Los Angeles or other American police departments.
Inflicting pain will get that "confession", but it won't get the Truth then either.
posted on March 10, 2003 12:43:24 PM new
The thing about Buchanan is ... the guy is smart, very smart. If you actually read what he's written, it can be difficult to dismiss.
I'd actually heard a debate on this on NPR about a week ago and have been thinking about it. I am probably going to shock some people who have me labeled as a bleeding-heart liberal (which in fact I am), but, like Buchanan, I can think of very limited instances where torture is permissable. (But I'm also sure my limits fall far short of his.) Here's an example where I'd definitely consider it.
Let's say you're an FBI agent coordinating a three-state hunt for a little girl who was snatched from a shopping mall two days ago. Today, your team caught a guy that they have GOOD reason to believe knows where that little girl is. I would say that you do what you have to do to find out what he knows, if there's a realistic chance that the little girl could be saved as a result.
In doing that, you have to accept the consequences of your action. You may kill any chance of ever successfully prosecuting the one who kidnapped the little girl, because much of your evidence would've been illegally obtained. If it turns out you're wrong about what the guy knows (or heck, even if you're right) you've brought massive civil liability on your agency. Your career in law enforcement is probably over.
Is it worth it to save the little girl? I probably would, though I don't think I'd go as far as battery cables and razor blades.
But I'd certainly be probing any source I could find for information that could help me batter him psychologically, like a particular phobia. Lights and noise can also be powerful (and surprisely quick) means of torture.
I would only do it to save a life or lives, (and that means specific individuals, not "this guy will kill again." ) In the case that Buchanan cites, it's tough to say, but I think he slid over the line. But what if it was Sept 10, 2001, you had credible reports that something huge was going down in the next few days and you had evidence this guy was connected and had the details? It's not the easiest call.
edited to fix rogue smilies
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 10, 2003 12:44 PM ]
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 10, 2003 01:16 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2003 05:15:16 PM new
In certain cases, I would condone mild psychological torture like sleep deprivation, bright lights, loud noises, etc.
posted on March 10, 2003 05:52:18 PM new
Torture, like terrorism and the death penalty is inhumane and cruel - especially when you may be dealing with innocent people.
posted on March 10, 2003 08:05:01 PM new
I don't know what I'd do if it turned out the person was innocent. It would be a terrible thing. It would be a terrible thing in any event but in some cases, I think it would still be justified.
Those cases have to be very few and far between. But if you know a human life is at stake, then the decisions are going to be hellish no matter what you do.
Obviously, no evidence obtained this way could be used in court. Neither could any "fruit of the poisonous tree" - that is, evidence that you only obtained because you tortured information from a suspect. That's what I meant when I said you'd have to balance the saving of a life against the chance that the perpetrator may never be convicted.
I don't think it should ever be officially sanctioned. Anyone who uses it has to be prepared to take the consequences, which could involve being criminally charged themselves. I'm just not sure that it's always an immoral decision.
It's not easy for me to say that, either. One of the guys on the NPR program (maybe it was Talk of the Nation? I can't remember) was from the UN Commission on Human Rights. He really shocked me when he said there were some cases in which he would consider it justified. Alan Dershowitz has said much the same thing. There is a really good editorial in the Economist that argues for a ban on torture but sanctions "mild" methods like sleep deprivation.
The thing that really frightens me is this - once the genie is out of the bottle, when do you say what is "justified" and what isn't? That is a haunting question on its own.
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 10, 2003 08:17 PM ]
