That depends on so many things. What type of info, how loyal is the subject, what is the urgency of getting the information, physical condition of the subject, the mental state of the subject, the training of the subject, the background of the subject etc. Just asking what do you think about torture is too simple a question to a complex matter. As a side note, torture has been an interest of mine since my teens, so i'm quite familiar with it.
I won't mince my words - Torture is abhorrent in all cases, irregardless of what 'valuable information' is gained.
Again, too often it's used on innocent people. Two British muslims captured in Afghanistan were sent to Guantanamo Bay and tortured for information, in the end they had to lie to stop the suffering these cowards inflicted upon them.
Out of the two evils, the death penalty and torture, torture is by far the worst, a flagrant violation of human rights. I hope some will agree with me here at least.
That's a bit of a broad question. Who defines the value of the information?
I think this time I will just go with the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Read into that whatever you like ;)
Unlike the Death Penalty, I can understand why some may think torture is valuable, but I still disagree as much as humanly possible.
This looks like it'll be a interesting discussion.
Ecce, What do you think? :-)
Funny. So majority of people are against torture yet every single nation in the history of mankind has tortured people. I won't even get into this hypocritical nonsense. I prefer honest discussion and not delusional simpletons telling other delusional simpletons how things work, ugh.
I think "majority" was the wrong word JJ@.
But Hexi, all nations have committed torture, but in todays world torture is something considered inhumane, and rightly so.
Continue the discussion, Hexi, you input is valuable.
I'm sorry, the more I think about it, the more I just have to say, "this is a stupid question."
Is torture wrong? Of course it is. Purposefully treating any human as he or she had no rights and abusing them in any way is just wrong, no matter what code you evaluate your life by.
But. What if you are a police officer. What if you know with 100% certainty that a bomb has been planted in a day care with 1000 4 year olds in it and that it will be detonated in 30 minutes. What if there is no possible way to evacuate the building completely before it goes off. What if you know with 100% certainty that the single individual you have in your presence knows where the bomb is and how to defuse it. What if he flat out refuses to divulge the information you need to save those children?
Does that one person's right to be treated with dignity and humanity outweigh the rights of the 1000 children to live? What about their parent's rights to enjoy watching them grow up? If you torture this suspect, you are certainly employing a bad means to accomplish a good end.
What if ... what if ... what if ... dumb question.
It's another question dealing with the social contract between a people and its government. What rights do we freely give up to protect the sanctity of our lives and lifestyles? No individual should be torturing any other individual, but you can't really say that no government should ever torture an individual. You can say you'd like to think we've all evolved to the point where torture is never necessary. But let's be realistic here, we haven't reached that point, globally speaking, as a species yet. The world just is not that enlightened.