sender
pawnphilosopher
source
Unspecified
share
view
pawnphilosopher
Unspecified
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Torture is not a justifiable way to extract information ("la question" is inherently pointless)
If what they say is true, the only way to know it is true is to have received the same information from a more reliable source
If the only motivation for a person to speak is torture, then they will only speak to end the torture.
Information extracted from the victim is either true or false
If what they say is false, the only way to know it is false is to have information from another source that refutes the victim's claims
If the only motivation for a person to speak is torture, then they will only speak to end the torture.
Information extracted from the victim is either true or false
It is perfectly justifiable to torture terrorists
this isn't a ticking time bomb scenario pawnphilosopher
Islamic extremists are enemies to America, and Americans want to see them suffer
(Americans want to torture terrorists for doing 9/11)
Terrorists are criminals/enemies of the state, and it is O.K. to punish them with torture (la supplice)
Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb by David Luban
In a democratic society / republic, public punitive torture doesn't make any sense
Foucault (as described in David Luban's article)
The ruling party is the populous, who already know their power
This argument says does not apply to governments not ruled by the people
The only reason to make torture public is to display the power of the ruling party of the populus
Another reason to conduct punitive torture publicly is to discourage others from committing the same crime
An eye for an eye (it doesn't matter if the whole world is blind, if that's what you want)
Often, we are not sure that the accused are actually guilty, and the risk of wrongfully torturing a man is too great to tolerate.
Sure, it is terrible for innocents to be punished, especially if that punishment is torture. The discussion is not whether torture as punitive torture can be reliably executed, but whether or not it is just given certain crimes pawnphilosopher
Historically, punitive punishment has been used to draw confessions from suspects.
This is not truly punitive torture, but la question. pawnphilosopher
Torturing terrorists lives and avoids conflict
(justification: lives saved)
Genghis Khan, for instance
It is possible for torture to save lives and avoid conflict (as in the case of Genghis Khan), so there are definitely cases where it is justifiable (even if there are cases where it isn't)
The "enhanced interrogation" used by the U.S. is a key part of extremist recruiting propaganda
(funnily enough, even North Korea has called enhanced interrogation "brutal" and "medieval")
Some people in the CIA are just sick fucks and would like the opportunity to torture people without repercussion
Torture is a terrible thing to do! It should never be done to another human being.
(there is never a reason, because you feel torture is wrong)
We kill people in war. Torture is worse than killing. Who says we can't torture?
Who cares if we kill others and it is justifiable in war? That says nothing about torture. pawnphilosopher