A hypothetical made real.

[Audley Strange]

So the cops have lifted Mark Bridger for the abduction of April Jones and now we actually have a real case, rather than it being a detached intellectual trifle.

Should Mark Bridger have been tortured to give up the location of the child?

[Faithfree]

Who?

[HomerJay]

This seems to have come up in a few places today.

I guess the first question would be is the child in danger?

The second, of course is what would constitute torture? Can we waterboard him, stress him etc?

Can we threaten his family, which may not constitute torture but get quick results?

[Audley Strange]

This seems to have come up in a few places today.

I guess the first question would be is the child in danger?

The second, of course is what would constitute torture? Can we waterboard him, stress him etc?

Can we threaten his family, which may not constitute torture but get quick results?

Currently missing.

You choose.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

No.

[laklak]

It's not torture, it's Enhanced Interrogation Techniquestm.

An old field telephone, hooked to the goolies, works wonders I'm told.

[Blind groper]

I had to google it myself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... bours.html

Torture is not justified. For a start, if Mark Bridger abducted the little girl, she is almost certainly dead by now, and the torture would not help anyone.

It is also one of those situations where, if you justify it for this case, where do you stop?

Civilised humanity should have moved beyond torture, which is just as barbaric as slavery.

[Audley Strange]

I somewhat agree, however potentially letting an abducted infant become a murdered infant when the option is on the table, doesn't necessarily seem justified nor civilised really does it?

Is letting a child be murdered more moral than torturing the abductor to save it?

[HomerJay]

I somewhat agree, however potentially letting an abducted infant become a murdered infant when the option is on the table, doesn't necessarily seem justified nor civilised really does it?

Is letting a child be murdered more moral than torturing the abductor to save it?

What about sleep deprivation, or lying to them, or giving them truth drugs, or solitary confinement?

A UN Raporteur has said that Abu Hamza shouldn't be extradicted to the US because the US penal system is torture.

Is it safe?

[Blind groper]

What about sleep deprivation, or lying to them, or giving them truth drugs, or solitary confinement?

Another slippery slope. If we descend to the depths of inflicting torture, even of that type, then what is to stop the trend continuing?

I am firmly opposed to torture, slavery, death penalty and a wide range of other barbarities, even if they seem justified at the time. Humanity should be trying to improve its behaviour, not go backwards.

[Seth]

I had to google it myself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... bours.html

Torture is not justified. For a start, if Mark Bridger abducted the little girl, she is almost certainly dead by now, and the torture would not help anyone.

It is also one of those situations where, if you justify it for this case, where do you stop?

Civilised humanity should have moved beyond torture, which is just as barbaric as slavery.

So, Homeland Security has certain knowledge of the presence of a "dirty bomb" in downtown Manhattan somewhere that will be detonated in a few hours, and they manage to capture one of the Al Quaeda terrorists who planted the bomb. They are certain of both the bomb's existence and the guilt of the suspect.

Is it ethical to torture this suspect to get him to reveal the location of the bomb before it goes off and kills hundreds of thousands of people?

Fucking right it's ethical. It's not just a moral choice, it's a moral imperative, and REFUSING to extract that information by any means necessary is both immoral and unethical.

[Blind groper]

Is it ethical to torture this suspect to get him to reveal the location of the bomb before it goes off and kills hundreds of thousands of people?

It is not only unethical, but it is also stupid. Stupid in the extreme!
One of the things that we know from studies of torture is that it takes time. If you try to get information from someone quickly using torture, assuming the person being tortured is resistant (as an Al Qaeda person would be), then you can guarantee what you get will be lies. Relying on torture in that situation is an absolute guarantee that you will not get to the bomb in time.

[Audley Strange]

I somewhat agree, however potentially letting an abducted infant become a murdered infant when the option is on the table, doesn't necessarily seem justified nor civilised really does it?

Is letting a child be murdered more moral than torturing the abductor to save it?

What about sleep deprivation, or lying to them, or giving them truth drugs, or solitary confinement?

A UN Raporteur has said that Abu Hamza shouldn't be extradicted to the US because the US penal system is torture.

Is it safe?

Such psychological techniques are not quick nor, I imagine, remotely "safe", if not physically harmful, so in the above case I doubt such would have been much use. What would be needed would be something quick. Herein lies the problem, it would have to be physical torture I think.

I'm not condoning such, I think it an interesting real world example of the hypothetical that has came up in regards to Sam Harris' questions on torture and I've heard his view, I'd actually like to hear others.

[Audley Strange]

duplicate

[hadespussercats]

Wouldn't he just lie?

I don't think the information obtained through torture is necessarily sound. Someone might say anything to make it stop. And to ascertain the truth of what was said, investigators have to do the same legwork they would have had to do anyway, without plunging into ethical dark places.