4 ms·
This is the case where there is without a doubt a definitive 'ticking time bomb'. Torture is usually used to illicit confessions, and in the case of the CIA the
by hellgas00 12y ago
This is the case where there is without a doubt a definitive 'ticking time bomb'. Torture is usually used to illicit confessions, and in the case of the CIA they used it as a method to garner further information without knowing if the subject had more information to give. Say the guy in the article was just a suspect and didn't actually know where the person was, is it prudent to torture him because he might know something?
- maroonblazer 12y agoRight, I wasn't arguing that torture was necessarily called for in situations where we don't know if someone has the desired information. I was more making the point that the idea that "torture never works" isn't borne out by the facts. One could imagine a situation where, like this one, we DO know the person has the information. Add to that the 'ticking time-bomb' context and it's difficult to argue against torture. Just to be clear, I think torture is horrendous and should be outlawed. But to say it should never be used is to fail to grapple more broadly with the complexities of collateral damage.
- sitkack 12y agoTurn it up to 11 and see if any more "information" comes out. Sounds legit.
- hellgas00 12y agoI see what you are saying, but I would have to guess that it's so very rare that the authorities know for sure that a suspect has information to give, that it is almost irrelevant to debate the scenario. Not to mention, the use of the ticking-time bomb scenarios were used to justify use of torture by the CIA. Which entity determines if a suspect has usable information, to stave off 'improper' use of torture? If you can't trust the CIA to make a definitive call in that regards, why even consider torture as an option in any form?