A sequel to Section 31?

[LutherSloan]

99% of military interrogators and terrorism experts will tell you that torture does not work. It almost always leads to the person undergoing torture giving up whatever their captors want to hear.

This one former military interrogator recently said in an interview that in one case where he was interrogating a terrorist suspect, the suspect was EXPECTING to be tortured, and actually gave up information once he realized that they were just going to talk to him. Now, this isn't always the case, but it is an example of how torture can backfire. A book I read about post-9/11 interrogation methods ("The Dark Side" by Jane Meyer) goes into detail about how things like waterboarding failed to produce viable intelligence.

 

[cem1701]

Whether torture is effective or not is, I think, irrelevant. It is something one refrains from on the basis that it is unethical, regardless of the results it may or may not yield.

I think in the "ticking bomb" type scenario it is perfectly ethical.

 

[Sci]

Whether torture is effective or not is, I think, irrelevant. It is something one refrains from on the basis that it is unethical, regardless of the results it may or may not yield.

I think in the "ticking bomb" type scenario it is perfectly ethical.

Or maybe it would be... except that it wouldn't actually work.

 

[Turbo]

Whether torture is effective or not is, I think, irrelevant. It is something one refrains from on the basis that it is unethical, regardless of the results it may or may not yield.

I think in the "ticking bomb" type scenario it is perfectly ethical.

You're confusing "ethical" with "necessary". I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a situation where it's necessary. There are always exceptions, though.

However, it's simply not ethical.

 

[Stevil2001]

Well, to be fair, that does depend on your personal ethical system.

 

[William Leisner]

Whether torture is effective or not is, I think, irrelevant. It is something one refrains from on the basis that it is unethical, regardless of the results it may or may not yield.

I think in the "ticking bomb" type scenario it is perfectly ethical.

Never mind that the "ticking bomb scenario" is just that: a scenario used by Hollywood scriptwriters to ratchet up tension. In real life, the fate of the world never comes down to one SOB who holds the last vital clue needed to save the day.

 

[Trent Roman]

A right that can be overriden 'when the circumstances are extreme enough' is an utterly worthless right. This isn't Tehran, after all: if torture is being considered in the first place, I already expect that the circumstances will be extreme. No point in having a right if it won't be defended when it actually comes into danger or conflicts with other interests.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[LutherSloan]

Most rational interrogators also believe that the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario is never going to occur. Hundreds of different things have to fall into line for there to be any chance of it happening, and the odds have been dubbed astronomical.