Is torture ever a viable for our heroes, superheroes or governments?

[November Rain]

I thought this was a nice time to bring up this topic since there have been allegations of torture being used in the states and with the British coercing in it.

Also our superheroes are also well known for their means of interrogation. Batman uses a large level of violence in order to try to obtain information, his means are far beyond the line of the law. Then there is Rorschach from Watchmen, a beloved fan favourite of a world renowned graphic novel and upcoming hollyowood adaptation. He has been known to go very far in order to extract information from everyday thugs.


So where do you draw the line or is it all about a means to an end?

is the level of torture vary depending on whether you know someone has a certain level of intelligence or someone you 'believe' has a certain level of intelligence.

does it all depend on a real threat level of a perceived threat level.

How far is too far and how do you look in the eyes of an innocent and apologise for putting them unnecessarily through that ordeal.

for those of you who believe anymeans are necessary to maintain peace, how comfortable are you living within a system that will subjegate people to all sorts in your name without your awareness of it. What if you become one of those people.

how does a nation or a country uphold its international intergrity when they are willing to act just as bad as the people they defend us from.

Pick up and discuss any of the points you want, cheers for input in advance

 

[Majic Walrus]

Is torture viable? I watched an episode of Boston Legal that put it best:

Torture is something that Americans are simply okay with. We're okay with a couple of busted skulls, smashed ribs, broken fingers if the ends are justified. We'd all rather a couple of cops beat the **** out of a pedophile in order to get a confession that sends him away or break the legs of a kidnapper to find a lost child. Yeah. We'd be okay with that.

Point of fact though, there is no absolute. Each situation will be judged seperately and each person will judge it differently. Batman and Rorschach are individuals that value their beliefs over the general belief which is called "law" they are beyond the law and will act accordingly being held in check only by their dedication or obsession.

Now. Personally I believe that the government should be limited in it's abilities to inflict torturious methods in extracting information generally. However if it's my kid that's kidnapped they'd better beat the ****er that they're questioning until he can't hold his eyes open.

I don't want anyone to think I have a double standard, I just have a clear understanding that there's no way to say that torture is absolutely okay to use and likewise no way to say that it is absolutely wrong.

 

[November Rain]

but you say torture of someone like a pedo.

most of the time the torture comes before any sort of legal representation and therefore the powers that be are operating under the guise that they are guilty before any lawful trial is produced.

this is the mirky bit, if you are beating up someone to confess to something before a trial period, you are assuming their guilt. And we all know what happens when people assume.

it's very much a chicken and egg situation and when does one decide to cross the line and decide the fate of an individual. You'll always end up putting innocents through that sort of ordeal.

i'm sure it may be written that way in the comics but batman could easily rough up an innocent or even a naiive informant. And how much torture does it take to go from a naiive informant to a squealer.

if someone clearly isn't going to talk, how good is chopping off an arm or anything else going to do, since it will lead to resentment OR the fear of getting found out and being punished by their own our.

It happened in the dark knight, that falcowne dude got tortured by bats but feared what the joker would have installed for him even more. It doesn't always work.

A case by case basis is fair enough only if you aren't operating under the continuous guise of a constant terror threat capable of destroying civilization at a moment's notice. The question is really are these threats really viable or is that what we are being fed to allow the unnecessary to happen and to justify it.

Fictionally, there are plenty of other heroes that don't go to batman's extremes in order to get the job done. Saying that when all else fails, they are happy to lock bruce up in a room with someone and take their ass to town.

 

[Majic Walrus]

but you say torture of someone like a pedo.

most of the time the torture comes before any sort of legal representation and therefore the powers that be are operating under the guise that they are guilty before any lawful trial is produced.

this is the mirky bit, if you are beating up someone to confess to something before a trial period, you are assuming their guilt. And we all know what happens when people assume.

it's very much a chicken and egg situation and when does one decide to cross the line and decide the fate of an individual. You'll always end up putting innocents through that sort of ordeal.

i'm sure it may be written that way in the comics but batman could easily rough up an innocent or even a naiive informant. And how much torture does it take to go from a naiive informant to a squealer.

if someone clearly isn't going to talk, how good is chopping off an arm or anything else going to do, since it will lead to resentment OR the fear of getting found out and being punished by their own our.

It happened in the dark knight, that falcowne dude got tortured by bats but feared what the joker would have installed for him even more. It doesn't always work.

A case by case basis is fair enough only if you aren't operating under the continuous guise of a constant terror threat capable of destroying civilization at a moment's notice. The question is really are these threats really viable or is that what we are being fed to allow the unnecessary to happen and to justify it.

Fictionally, there are plenty of other heroes that don't go to batman's extremes in order to get the job done. Saying that when all else fails, they are happy to lock bruce up in a room with someone and take their ass to town.

In this country the idea that you are considered innocent until proven guilty is a farce. You simply are not. You are considered guilty at the time that you are arrested with probable cause by a police officer.

Also we're not talking about just beating someone for a confession we're talking about beating some up, torturing them, in order to save lives, kids lives, people's lives, thousands of lives maybe. Is it acceptable then?

Is it okay to toture people when it might help find your kid. I've got no problems saying that I would break every bone in your body if I thought you had the slightest bit of info about my kid. I would torture you if I thought it would help.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

if jack bauer endorses it, who are we to agrue

 

[terry78]

We have a lot of gray areas in our society. Some dude mugs someone and steals their purse, we're like, throw him jail, but aren't quick to jump to torture to get the confession. Now if the victim was beaten, raped or something like that, then we're like, "beat that a-hole's ass until he confesses, or even if he does confess, do it anyway, in conjunction with that old cliche of injuring someone for "whatever they may do in the future." We tend to take a lot of stuff personal when it comes to certain crimes because we let our feelings dictate.

 

[November Rain]

so what good is any real law system if we all regress to the law of the land in order to get things done.

if the concensus is to regress to this type of thinking, then why do we pretend to be so civilised about the law?

surely the law should be a system that works rather than a system that reflects a better image of society than actually exists.

 

[Majic Walrus]

so what good is any real law system if we all regress to the law of the land in order to get things done.

if the concensus is to regress to this type of thinking, then why do we pretend to be so civilised about the law?

surely the law should be a system that works rather than a system that reflects a better image of society than actually exists.

The system should not regress to this type of thinking. The system should be above and beyond that. The system should be perfect. The thing is, the system is perfect, the system itself can do exactly what it claims to do however the problem is that people are the actors of the system and the flaws in the system are all due to human based error or flawed logic because of human thought.

 

[Erzengel]

I'd torture all of you for a delicious hamburger.

 

[November Rain]

if you can't get people to adhere to a system, then it's not a perfect system.

if you then wish to re-educate the flaws of humanity to conform to a system, you go down the dangerous route of dictatorship. if you go the otherway and purposely work outside of it, you become a flawed dictator/hypocrite. Both of these are more damaging then accepting you can't lead a cow downstairs or make an elephant jump.

At least that's what I've been told

 

[November Rain]

I'd torture all of you for a delicious hamburger.

but when the burger is gone and your stomach is empty, you'll have no one to talk to...



or make you a new burger

 

[thedeadite]

One of the main problems with "strong interrogation" or torture is that even an innocent man will confess to anything given enough abuse. This leaves the real criminal still out on the streets, with the probability of committing the same crime(s).
There is a big difference between justice and vengeance, a good law system realizes the problems inherent in vengeance (ie more emphasis on punishing the criminal than if you even have the right person) and is focused on justice (doing your best to make sure you have the right person before worrying about punishment).

I completely agree that if someone kidnapped my child (if i had one) or murdered/raped a family member or loved one I would want to unleash old testament style violence on them until they were on their last breath, let them heal and do it all again. I'm sure the vast majority of people feel the same way.
There's a big difference though between what I'd want to do to this suspect and bringing this suspect to proper justice.

 

[November Rain]

that's reactive torture though which vengeance does play a big part in.

The real problem is proactive torture or the torture of a small fry in order to lead to a big fish.

 

[The Guard]

Some of you are acting like we torture over every little thing. I agree re: Innocent person confessing to torture. There are problems with the application of torture.

I think whether it's appropriate very much depends on the situation. Is it wrong? Absolutely. But you know what? Some chance of finding out absolutely vital information if it can save lives is generally better than none.

I'm much more interested in using truth serums.

 

[Addendum]

People torture because they lack the intelligence to get the information through questioning

 

[The Guard]

How is it intelligent to expend even more of a mental effort to obtain what you want?

 

[JoeCat]

People torture because they lack the intelligence to get the information through questioning

That's an absolute.

What about willpower? If there is something that I do not want to tell you, no level of genius is going to trick me into telling you.

 

[Addendum]

Because getting the information through questioning is a skill. And learning a skill requires some intelligence.

There is no skill in torture, nor is there any intelligence involved.

 

[Addendum]

This article is from this past November, and will be the third time I've posted the link, but it's appropriate regarding this thread.

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

 

[SLVRSR4]

if you can't get people to adhere to a system, then it's not a perfect system.

if you then wish to re-educate the flaws of humanity to conform to a system, you go down the dangerous route of dictatorship. if you go the otherway and purposely work outside of it, you become a flawed dictator/hypocrite. Both of these are more damaging then accepting you can't lead a cow downstairs or make an elephant jump.

At least that's what I've been told

Everyone's a hypocrite and like an above poster said it is subjective so to many others it isn't torture to begin with.

 

[JoeCat]

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

Unfortunately not everybody is born to be a soldier.

 

[Addendum]

I fixed the link. Perhaps now you can read the article which was written by an interrogator. He was able to get Zarqawi's location without having to resort to torture.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Because getting the information through questioning is a skill. And learning a skill requires some intelligence.

There is no skill in torture, nor is there any intelligence involved.

That doesn't mean that torture isn't an effective method though. It might not work as well as intelligent questioning skill, but it still does work.

 

[Majic Walrus]

if you can't get people to adhere to a system, then it's not a perfect system.

if you then wish to re-educate the flaws of humanity to conform to a system, you go down the dangerous route of dictatorship. if you go the otherway and purposely work outside of it, you become a flawed dictator/hypocrite. Both of these are more damaging then accepting you can't lead a cow downstairs or make an elephant jump.

At least that's what I've been told

You are flawed. People are flawed. That is unchangable.

 

[Addendum]

There is no guarantee that the information provided through torture is accurate, which is the entire point of obtaining information or intel