State Sponsored Torture, a necessity or a crime against humanity?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Hi,

    You can find new board on address: https://forum.ikariam.gameforge.com/
    Please register there to continue with usage.

    Old forum is in read only mode and will stay like that for some time

    Ikariam team

    • State Sponsored Torture, a necessity or a crime against humanity?

      For many years Guantanamo Bay detention centre has been a centre of torture for terrorists, some argue that torture rarely leads to actual new intelligence, others argue it's a necessity for national security. This isn't just an American topic to debate, torture plays a significant role in countries all across the world, in Britain there are scandals about using British bases to transport terror suspects to Guantanamo, human rights courts wouldn't allow extradition of terrorists to Jordan without treaties preventing torture. In some countries torture plays a part in the justice system, whether it's lashes in Saudi Arabia or electrocution under the Pinochet government in Chile. With Donald Trump saying he'd do water boarding and a lot worse, perhaps this is about to become a very interesting debate.

      So, the question for debate, State Sanctioned Torture; A necessity or a crime against humanity?


      I'll start the debate rolling with my opinion, and I will be playing devils advocate in this thread to everyone, so don't be surprised if I contradict myself later when questioning your reasons.

      But, in general I'd support the use of torture to extract information that could prevent a terror attack, But only for people who have been convicted of terrorism, I disagree with detention without trial.
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12
    • I'd go this way: if you know something big is coming and you know THAT guy there knows, then sure... problem is, this case kinda never occurs.

      When torture is allowed, way too much of it happens.

      But mostly, anybody with a brain knows that when you torture:
      - you loose the moral high ground
      - it's a very good way of creating more enemies

      Not saying there couldn't be a case once where it's justified, but as a rule, I find it very counter productive.
      And well, if you're going to be an ahole, why not go for nukes?

      No, a lot better way is not to feed their ranks due to our actions.
      Just don't vote in conservatives at the top... they can't help themselves and will always end up with piles of deaths and very little to show for it.

      Schluups, Mad ruler of the Schluupsonians
    • Such a hard topic to have a decisive view on...

      In my opinion torturing terrorists is a no brainer, all for it because at the end of the day someone who can condone the murder of 10's, 100's, 1000's even is just a waste of the oxygen they breath! If putting them through un-bearable pain in order to save an innocent life is what it takes then lets go!!

      However the real problem comes with finding those who are guilty of it. Terrorists have this knack of dying after committing their crimes and so its hard to be 110% sure that person is guilty of it. So if and i mean 110% if you know and can prove they did it or were planning, and assisted in the crime then yes do it. Otherwise i really dont think suspicion is enough to destroy another human because they MAY OR MAY NOT know about an attack.

      In short yes for the certain and no for anyone else :thumbup:


      Avatar and sig by HONDA 775 :thumbup:
    • The biggest problem is: you'll almost never know for 100% this person is guilty (the same goes for death penalty).
      "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
      (c) Albert Einstein
    • Sharpe12 wrote:

      So in other words, torture them, in secret and never let out alive?
      Or just keep it illegal and don't do it. It's not about caring about terrorists... I don't.
      I care about what we become in the process and I also care about not shooting ourselves in the foot.
      As for vengeance... well, it goes both ways and at worse, ends up in a 100 years conflict.

      Schluups, Mad ruler of the Schluupsonians
    • A bit old, but an interesting topic. ^^

      Xarius wrote:


      However the real problem comes with finding those who are guilty of it. Terrorists have this knack of dying after committing their crimes and so its hard to be 110% sure that person is guilty of it. So if and i mean 110% if you know and can prove they did it or were planning, and assisted in the crime then yes do it. Otherwise i really dont think suspicion is enough to destroy another human because they MAY OR MAY NOT know about an attack.

      Draxo wrote:

      The biggest problem is: you'll almost never know for 100% this person is guilty (the same goes for death penalty).
      Agreed. And the death penalty is heavily related to this topic for that reason. I just saw an interesting advertisement about the death penalty on YouTube, though I can't seem to find it at the moment... I'll post it when it pops up again.

      schluups wrote:

      Sharpe12 wrote:

      So in other words, torture them, in secret and never let out alive?
      Or just keep it illegal and don't do it. It's not about caring about terrorists... I don't. I care about what we become in the process and I also care about not shooting ourselves in the foot.
      As for vengeance... well, it goes both ways and at worse, ends up in a 100 years conflict.
      It seems as though everyone is anti-terrorist, but the term is heavily subjective. By definition, terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." In this sense, saying you're anti-terrorist would mean you are against the United States government and its respective armed forces as well as against the American Revolutionaries in the 18th century. Surely you don't condone the use of torture for those people who see the US as terrorists.

      My opinion: the use of torture and the death penalty are both crimes against humanity. The fact that we can never be certain that someone did/knows something, nor (in the case of the death penalty) can we ever say that we reject killing in society if an overwhelming majority has the right to kill one of their own.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • A Brave and honourable man who was viciously hung as a spy by your terrorist founding fathers for being a spy. When all he was trying to do was assist the defection of Benedict Arnold, something that wouldn't have happened if your side was any good.
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12
    • We have a legal system to decide whether or not somebody is guilty or innocent. It is up to those individuals to determine somebody's guilt. If you're saying we cannot be certain if somebody's guilty, you're suggesting we shouldn't throw anybody behind bars unless it matches their plea. Certain crimes should be deserving of a far more severe penalty and if that penalty is death, why not? The few times the case has been wrong are irrelevant compared to the many times they haven't. Why continue to pay for the scum of the Earth for years? Higher security, higher costs, higher medical fines etc.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle:
    • bamcbix wrote:

      We have a legal system to decide whether or not somebody is guilty or innocent. It is up to those individuals to determine somebody's guilt. If you're saying we cannot be certain if somebody's guilty, you're suggesting we shouldn't throw anybody behind bars unless it matches their plea. Certain crimes should be deserving of a far more severe penalty and if that penalty is death, why not? The few times the case has been wrong are irrelevant compared to the many times they haven't. Why continue to pay for the scum of the Earth for years? Higher security, higher costs, higher medical fines etc.
      Suggesting uncertainly over one's guilt does not go hand-in-hand with supporting a legal system that takes the defendant's plea as the primary factor in a case's decision. If anything, I'm suggesting that there is a flaw in the legal system that is significant enough to get rid of the death penalty. I agree, severe penalty is required for those that commit crimes deserving of it, however why should the penalty be death? Because it makes people feel better when someone dies? I would hope not. Because death is the severest punishment? For those non-sociopaths, staying alive with all of your freedoms taken away would be much more punishing. Because of cheaper costs? Alright, life imprisonment is more expensive (barely in some cases) than the death penalty. However, if money is a problem when it comes to prisoners, perhaps we should question why we are paying for so many people in prison for lesser crimes *cough* marijuana *cough* and save prison for people who actually deserve to be there.

      Sharpe12 wrote:

      A Brave and honourable man who was viciously hung as a spy by your terrorist founding fathers for being a spy. When all he was trying to do was assist the defection of Benedict Arnold, something that wouldn't have happened if your side was any good.
      Oh, you're from the UK. Well, that example was definitely not meant for you. :P

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • Youre suggesting that the legal system doesn't work. My suggestion is you come up with a better system. Evidence that is brought forward is the defining factor in any case. Don't assume I'm suggesting the death penalty for any or every case but ones where evidence is strong enough and the crime is high enough, be done with it. It's not just the costs of feeding them and housing those individuals that factor in. The death penalty is usually significantly cheaper once you allow yourself to take into account medical costs caused to and by those individuals, staff etc. Mistakes we're made and the wrong person was convicted? That's on the shoulders of the courts and all involved, but the clear message that such crimes are not permitted causes less to occur. As far as I care make it a pay per view event and sell it out to all that would want to watch the death of an individual. The freedoms of the country are forged in blood, what's the difference of the loss of freedoms by the scum of the Earth sharing in such a manner.

      As for your marijuana example or other lesser crimes: here's a few tips. Don't get caught where it's illegal. Don't perform such actions where it's illegal. Laws are what keep us separated from the animals after all.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle:
    • Youre suggesting that the legal system doesn't work. My suggestion is you come up with a better system. Evidence that is brought forward is the defining factor in any case.
      No, I'm not suggesting that the legal system does not work. In fact, I said exactly what I was suggesting, "there is a flaw in the legal system that is significant enough to get rid of the death penalty". The flaw is human nature; that is our inability to be unbiased and completely honest. While death is not the most severe punishment, it is the most permanent and frankly, not something one should consider if there is always a chance of injustice.

      Don't assume I'm suggesting the death penalty for any or every case but ones where evidence is strong enough and the crime is high enough, be done with it. It's not just the costs of feeding them and housing those individuals that factor in. The death penalty is usually significantly cheaper once you allow yourself to take into account medical costs caused to and by those individuals, staff etc
      Alright, so I did some quick research and it seems like the trial for a Death Sentence can last for more than a year, and can cost 3 million dollars a case. Life sentences on the other hand, on average, cost roughly 1.5 million dollars, those were both conservative estimates. Here's a source with different numbers but the same conclusion:
      hg.org/article.asp?id=31614


      As far as I care make it a pay per view event and sell it out to all that would want to watch the death of an individual. The freedoms of the country are forged in blood, what's the difference of the loss of freedoms by the scum of the Earth sharing in such a manner.
      Laws are what keep us separated from the animals after all.
      So, laws are what keeps us separated from the animals, but watching someone be killed by another human being is perfectly fine. Now I just find that reasoning wanting.

      As far as the marijuana topic goes, I was arguing that we should prioritize more serious crimes with jailing rather than with lesser crimes such as marijuana (which already have a disproportionate number of people in jail because of it). I also found it amusing that you seemed to link my marijuana example with me admitting I smoke it. Well, I don't and don't intend to. However, the science is very clear that it should not be listed as a substance as addictive and dangerous as heroin or meth.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • While you may argue the times when convictions are wrong are negligible and therefore the death penalty is moral, I must disagree.

      For one, the death penalty is, to the best of our technology, irreversible. And sentencing the innocent man revokes all possibilities of letting him live a free life once more that should not be denied to him. In addition, the application of the death penalty is uneven. Two men could commit the same crime and different juries would decide in different ways about whether or not to apply the penalty. And again, as the death penalty is irrevocable, that is a grave injustice. With sentencing a man to prison, there is the chance for their name to be cleared or for sentences to be adjusted at a later time if just cause is brought.

      In addition to that is the fact that human life is sacred and each person has their own dignity, even if they do not respect the dignity of others. In such cases where deadly force is necessary to preserve other lives, taking life is justified, but in our modern countries, prison systems are so reasonably designed as to make killing the criminal rarely necessary to preserve the lives of others. And with our non-lethal ways to keep a person from killing again, we do not have just cause to end the life of another due the innate dignity of human life.


      Heather wrote:

      But baka, how can you be the cop if you're not playing?

      HaNs Na MiTrAljEzU wrote:

      But then again, knowing Kaleg, it could also mean we're all screwed later.
    • You say that as though anything is reversible. Taking the life either by the murderer or the justice system is irreversible. As is sending an innocent man to jail, :censored: a woman, doing universally immoral things to children, or sitting down at your desk for the last 5 minutes... Again I'll back through the whole spiel of Justice system, evidence and blah blah blah and if the evidence is clear enough and the crime is extreme enough you're rewarding them with life.

      Now as for torture, I also have absolutely nothing against that pending on the necessity. Are we at war? Does the target likely have information? How much information for the cost? What is the direct level of threat and necessity for the supposed information? And again, if all things are clear, proceed.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle: