Interrogation & torture

What are your opinions on the boundaries of legality and ethics when it comes to interrogation techniques?

  1. Should torture at any level be permitted?
  2. Is torture that does not inflict physical injury, like sleep deprivation or white noise immersion alright?
  3. Should the level of permitted torture be proportionate to the level of risk involved? E.g. level of torture to get a thief to canary about his buddies would be low intensity. Level of torture to get a terrorist to reveal plans which risk lives should be anything up to lethal.

perhaps torture should be limited to forcing one to read the longest thread.

Even though i prefer mental torture … i’d hate to see a weak crying human when i know he/she was a great person.

But perhaps sometimes it’s necessary to torture someone to get the truth out… i mean … what is torture and when is it anger , and for what purposes. Given the right amount of torture one will confess anything.

Torture? Never. You can make innocent people confess whatever you want. :frowning:

Torture is never reliable because the person in pain will tell whatever the torturer wants to hear to stop the pain. However, mental torture is more cruel in some ways but it is more reliable than physical torture as it weakens the mind and might force some hidden things to come out. But, this takes time. Physical torture is a quick but unreliable way of getting info. It also creates deep animosity between the groups that will never be healed just as the scars caused by the torture will never be healed. Most of the American GI’s that were tortured by the vietnamese have a sentiment that “the only good gook is a dead gook.” Not good for diplomacy or anything else.