40% of Australians think torturing an enemy to obtain vital information is OK http://tinyurl.com/ljvcy9. There is some academic support for that position, witness some of the articles that we have published by Mirko Bagaric, like this one http://tinyurl.com/npp5uh. And what would a spy movie be without the torture scene?

But that is all theory. How willing would any of us be to torture? There is evidence that it might be more easy than we would like to admit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.

In fact, my observation of some of the trainers at my gym suggests that the torture impulse might not be that far below some people's skins, given a framework which licences bullying and characterises it as necessary to a good outcome.

im reluctant to reply...but have noticed a growing trend to yell at people as being normal...witness the fat camps..of the greatest loosers

but back to the torture issue...notably the failure to reveal the 'other' torture photoes...suppressed by obama...reportedly showing child rape..[of the t-errorists..own children/spouces..to get info out of the enemy]...

thats really the way to go obama...let those doing most vile..[and calling it to be done for the cause of good]...

a rightious man should not be afraid...of their works being broadcast far and wide..why not..that scum be exposed as the scuuuum they really are...we either..reveal the whole truth..or its the same old lie's

anyhow..the info is out there..that when we truelly hate others..we will seek to hurt them...vile and us good..if only to end our own pain...we are willing to cause further pains...worser pain...again and again...till we go numb...and the media goes silent

on the aspect of doing it..at home..reportedly far worse..occurs behind those drawn curtains and barred windows of suburbia...if only via that we are chosing to be watching on tv

Graham asks:

"How willing would any of us be to torture?"

I suspect that it would be a very much smaller number than the 40% who seem to be happy to let other people do it.

And given that the descriptor is "willing", I'm not sure that the Milford experiment is particularly relevant, which was designed to uncover our response to authority.

Being told to do something, and complying, does not automatically imply willingness, merely submission.

If we were asked "how many of you would inflict torture if ordered to do so", I suspect most of us would insist that we would not get ourselves into that position in the first place. Which, when you consider the relative positions of combatant and non-combatant, is not unreasonable.

The ethics of torture itself were covered from both sides following Mirko's article. For myself, I found that I disagreed from the outset with the premise that killing innocent people is intrinsically worse that torturing someone.

It's like having the choice between jumping off the roof or shooting yourself in the head. The motive quickly becomes irrelevant once the end is achieved.

Milgram, not Milford. Sorry.

I would willingly torture someone if it meant saving the life of my children or friends. I would have blood on my hands if I allowed them to die because of some sort of failed ideology. Funny enough many who oppose torture at all costs have no problem in killing the unborn.

Pericles, I think authority comes in many forms. The Holocaust is of the same nature as torture, and whole populations conspired in that to some extent or another. Fashion is possibly a stronger driver than outright, but unfashionable, coercion.

Dear Graham,

Torture is never OK.

To me it represents military
forces, police forces and other groups and public
authorities using torture illegally to punish and
control people and to gain information about civil,
military and political matters. To me it means placing
political beliefs above human rights.

I totally oppose it.

I would be interested to know whether the Red Cross, during the course of the interviews, showed the interviewees a common definition of torture –or, was it assumed everyone had the same understanding of what torture was?

(I couldn’t see THEIR definition recorded, in any of the links –but, maybe I missed it!)

An initial response only. Hope to come back to the issue.

The critical questions are:

1. Is it justifiable to cause suffering, or to use the threat of this as persuasion, in circumstances where to do so is assessed as a means of saving lives and/or achieving lawful objectives (in a warlike situation or in relation to terrorism)? I think the answer must be "yes".

2. What actually constitutes torture? There is huge ground for debate on this issue.

3. What are the reasonable limits of "torture" (however defined)? I think these limits exist at the point where it is plain no valuable information will be gained from continuing "persuasion". This requires very careful judgment and the limits must also be lawful and within rules of engagement.

4. A general point: It is not true that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", a consistent theme of much criticism. Someone (whoever that is and whatever the cause) planning indiscriminate mass murder has placed themselves beyond the protection of the law insofar as the law applies to situations in which they refuse to surrender to or to recognise lawful authority.

GY “torture impulse might not be that far below some people's skins,”

Observation to those who endure hours of “workouts” on the differing devices found in gymnasiums

For those gymnasts with a well developed sense of the Masochistic, torture might be perceived as a positive opportunity

And so too those who are sadistically minded.

In fact put one of each of those together and you have the basis of a successful, albeit torturous, union.

Proving once again:

That it is a strange world indeed in which we live!

GY
I think you are, if taken at word value confusing two separate issues.
"Torture impulse" as in our animalistic impulse to inflict pain on others as in delight in bullying, revenge etc. In which case I think you're right it is very close to the surface.

Secondly the Milgram test tests our willingness to follow orders.
As I learned remember it was originally designed with "National guardspersons" to test the effect of authority (orders) to supersede our personal inclinations.

This was also investigated in the prisoners and warders tests.
One of the conclusions I read suggested that humans are still largely hierarchical and will therefore submit to the 'greater power'.

On repeats of these tests there are some subjects who simply refused to administer the pain once it was clear that the person being tortured was beyond 'reasonable' levels. I don't recall reading detailed analysis of the failed subjects.

I think there is a correlation between your question and that of the KS and Jackie O program.

While it may be instinctual I have to believe that humans are more than the sum . If not then the logical conclusion is that 40k years of civilization is for naught.

It is interesting to note that it could be argued that there is an inverse ratio between morality and the number of people involved. entropy? or are we designed to be in groups 50 or less

Torture has all kinds of meanings, albeit many merely associate it with inflicting some form of pain upon body parts that can be seen.
I am assisting a person in his case where the torture might be less evident but still to him it was torture and he nearly croaked with an heart attack because of having been terrorised by a judge telling him she could imprison him for several years. Well, on the 6 contempt hearing I was called in to assist this man and I pointed out to the trial judge she had no such powers whatsoever. Long story to explain but after a lot of submissions by me she ordered a PERMANENT STAY to stop the case. Thereafter I discovered she never even had formally charged him either!
More over, as I presented to the judge he had been innocent of any legal wrongdoing just that the entire case was fictional.
As such, to this man it was a form of torture and nearly cost him his life.
When however we refer to torture such as the US perpetrated against prisoners, then no matter the end result it never should be accepted. After all, once you accept torture upon anyone then where is the dividing line when to use it. Torturing innocent people for the purported avoidance of harm isn’t going to do it. Because those doing the torturing haven’t got a clue who knows something or not it means that they torture anyone no matter how innocent the person might be.
All forms of torture should be prohibited as if you allow one side to use it then the other side quickly will adopt the same of more gruesome and then you cannot complain because one side is more exposed then the other.
We have no right to retaliate with torture against anyone and the so called Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction (WMD) should have taught us a lesson that politicians will whip up the feelings to get anything done no matter how wrong by their spin doctors.
We should never consent to the use of any form of torture.

We truly do not know until we are faced with it.
Most of us will have seen that experiment, long ago the one that gave electric shocks, or seemed to, in increasing levels of pain.
Many Joe averages did without complaint thinking they truly hurt people.
I may have done it too, a long time ago I might just have followed the orders.
Now, sorry never,
Without reserve I would kill my enemy's but never torture.
Those who say they would must ask themselves what they would think if their son/daughter/ father/mother/child was tortured?
If our troops captured in say Iraq got tortured, just maybe among those who say yes I would torture are some who would condemn others for doing just as they say they would.

When I lived in Germany with a German family their 18-year old son asked me what I would do if we were in opposite armies facing each other, if I would shoot him. I explained that we would be enemy forces and I would not hesitate to do so if it was needed and he responded he would do likewise. After all who was to say the other would recognise and not shoot?
As such, I accept that in times of war one may end up killing someone no matter of a close friendship there existing otherwise being a soldier to defend others. However, nevertheless otherwise I deplore the killing and so also the torture of people. Neither would I ever have served in attacking another nations. My service in NATO was one of defence.
Torture is not some split second conduct as one may be in with an opposing army where it is too shoot or being shot, as torture is in a controlled situation. Torture is often used on innocent people because those exercising the torture wouldn’t know the guilty from innocent people.
We always may find some excuse to justify the torture even upon innocent people but lets not go down that path.
Keep in mind that terrorist, if you want to call them as such, often learn their tools of trade of a disregard of human lives because of what they themselves may have had to endure at the hands of others, generally their opponents. As such it is a never-ending escalating abuse and misuse of violence.
Just consider yourself becoming the victim of torture because you are wrongly suspected of wrongdoings. Would you really then support torture?
.
I for one prefer to do without any form of violence as after all we all are entitled to peace and tranquillity.

In the light of the KS and crew debacle and GY's question I wondered if my concern was that what the girl suffered was tantamount to torture for entertainment.
This prompted a few other questions.
What IS torture?
Where is the line
During the debate someone asked “was it the way it was done” that caused the public outcry.
I maintained it was because the victim was under aged and that it was simply torture for entertainment to gain profit.

There are how ever a couple of other situations I would like to throw into the mix.
There was a doco recently in which the subjects were isolated for days in order to observe their tolerance level of being dehumanised. (is this entertainment?)
Next , some year ago a high tech prison was built in Victoria to accommodate “the worst of the worst' in this prison prisoners were under constant 24 hr. surveillance. Given that prisons are notorious for creating violent subcultures . Why then the outrage..
Finally Gitmo. Apart from the the ignored legal niceties, the overreaction , water-boarding etc. all of which yielded no worth while “evidence” and the US claimed real security issues . Wasn't the level of general dehumanisation
simply torture (revenge and fear )
and clearly counter productive in the long haul simply upping the ante.?
I can't see any clear or absolute justification for these practices.
Does it all come down to the vagaries of motive and methodology?
To me it's a matter of Humanity.

There is an issue of consent here Examinator.

The Vile and Tacky stunt can't be torture because the girl consented. Or maybe it can, if the situation goes beyond what is consented to. But then, who is going to know, as the consent is so vague.

In any case, you can't discuss torture without some discussion about consent and degrees of coercion. (I don't think all coercion can be classified as wrong.)

If we are to allow torture how can we then condemn others when they use torture?

Runner, your post deeply shocked me. You are a follower of Jesus Christ. Does the righteousness of your belief stem from His message, His teaching and life?

The right to defend yourself in situations like you described is more akin to what some Islamists intrepret their Holy Book says.

Have we learned nothing from history?

We've had regimes in the past who built and
expanded concentration camps in which millions
of innocent victims perished. Regimes that despised
and mistrusted democracies. Regimes that used the
same methods to deal with their domestic opposition -
terror.

Regimes that raised torture, suppression, and murder
to a science.

Do we really want to go down that path?

As a recent editorial in my local paper stated:

"While no one believes complacency is a desirable
approach to alleged terrorist threats. It is also
true that this should not equate to chronic
suspicion of outsiders. Our communities should be
made up of the vigilant, not the vigilantes.

Communities across our country have shown their
resilience in the face of similar concerns before.
They must do so again to demonstrate how the fabric
of our neighbourhoods relies on an essential decency
and tolerance to function properly.

Extremism by its very definition is rare. We need to
be aware of its potential threat, but not be crippled
by fear."

GY
I posted on the other topic a few questions that in my mind null the consent issue.
I would argue that pressure "coercion" was applied i.e. why the lie detector?
Secondly it appears to me that neither the mum or the child were equipped to offer informed considered consent.
I doubt that either had fully understood or were capable of fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
KS etc were and I have no doubts pressure tactics to get what they wanted...a stunt that would gain ratings.

One could apply the reasonable man test...which reasonable man do you know would have allowed these predatory actions to effect their daughter.....I don't know any personally.
Although I am sure there would be some in the lower socio- economic areas (read education, conditioning and opportunity deprived).
In short there is a matter of capacity to give informed consent.
I do agree that it isn't that clear cut but consider their comparative experience intelligences and consumer law etc.

Finally torture can be defined as applying physical and mental coercion (pain /suffering) on to a person their without informed consent( nullified here).
To me the more subtle the greater is the duty of care.

People are rabbiting on, giving catechism readings about the evils of –torture – and, we have yet to agree on what constitutes torture.

And separate, and distinct, from the above –what was the definition of torture that Red Cross was using? –and did the interviewees all get to see that definition? [please don’t post me a link to the UNs definition –unless you can show it was the definition Red Cross used in the cited survey!]

Unless we clear up these issues, the whole discussion is futile –well!… it’s probably futile anyway, but, lets conduct this exercise in futility in an orderly fashion !

Anything is possible with conditioning such as that with the holocaust in relation to genocide and torture however, I believe that most human beings would not submit to torturing their fellow human beings even under trying circumstances.

Perhaps, unfortunately it is not normally these types that end up working for Defence forces or senior levels of government.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland in an interview with Kerry O'Brien about terrorism laws recalled the words of a Supreme Court Judge in Israel when he said words to the effect of:

"...terrorists can kill and maim and they can destroy property, but only we, by our response to terrorism, can destroy our institutions of governance and the soul of our community."

I think this quote is equally relevant to discussions on the practice of torture.

I view the best torture can be described is that it is involves a conduct, physical, verbal or otherwise that induces or otherwise causes harm upon an person which a FAIR MINDED PERSON would conclude in the circumstances prevailing to constitute torture.
.
As such, as I indicated previously threatening an innocent man with a term of imprisonment that he suffers a heart attack as much can be torture then physical harm.
.
A FAIR MINDED PERSON is to be taken the ordinary person in society who has no involvement in the act/conduct and has a balanced view of what is deemed appropriate in society.
.
It should be understood that mental torture, albeit not always possible to be observed nevertheless is a form of torture.
.
One could fill reams of paper listing all forms of torture but it is an ever expanding list and so never ending because there are always new ways found to use it.
.
The Internet is a clear tool to torture children to such extend that they end up committing suicide.
.
At times we may not even be aware that our conduct might amount upon torture to another person not because of the conduct we have on our own but in combination with conduct of others, even so we might be unaware of the conduct of others in that regard. A clear example is where a girl is receiving all kinds of emails that drives her to suicide even so taking one email upon its own context may not particularly be harmful but the combination of all emails have the effect of a mental torture.
.
Mental torture of all kinds is commonly exercised by us all even so we do not realise this ourselfs to be as such because the victim usually is the only one aware of it being torture.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Thank you for your attempts to define torture, though, I do see a few issues with your definition(s):

I recall seeing a documentary –made by persons who I’m sure many, including themselves, would consider very fair minded – amongst the examples of torture they listed were i) repeatedly standing in ones personal space, & ii) forcing someone to stand for long hours. I wondered at the time –and still do –whether that would leave State Rail open to a multitude of claims from commuters?

And “mental torture”, what a can of worms!
Plenty of scope for nagging partners to be indicted, there under?

And internet torture ( & by extension telephone, snail & email)
I can foresee stressed and abused customer service staff, running with that one.

I am sure you are well meaning --but sometimes the cure has unwanted side effects.

A more insidious form of torture is where a society is so straight-jacketed with abuse laws/concepts that they “ induce or otherwise cause harm”.
Where, the whole society is traumatised and deformed as a result … whom would we seek to prosecute in that instance?

Examinator, I think your definition of torture is so broad it undermines the legitimacy of the concept of torture. It's a bit like the Bringing Them Home Report into the Stolen Generation. By calling what happened genocide it undermined the report rather than advancing it.

Just because you get yourself into some embarrassing situations doesn't mean that your consent wasn't informed because if you had known where things would end-up you wouldn't have agreed in the first place. Who hasn't been in those positions.

It might be colloquially "torture" or even "murder" when you find yourself in the embarrassing situation, but not in any meaningful legal sense.

GY
Fair point. If you can be shown to have the capacity hence the common man test. I am as always,uncomfortable with the legalese transposition to "knowledgeable man justification" (aka caveat emptor)
Your comparison with the word Genocide is in my mind a poor one.
Genocide has a clear meaning the word has been appropriated as a quasi adjective for emotional effect.
I don't believe torture has the same connotations/ common usage.

I don't wish to centre the argument on specific instances and circumstances neither of us can objectively know. my point was to high light that "one size fits no one".
Specificity in definitions tends to exclude more than it covers and is open to the US style legalistic manipulation.
i.e. 'black letter' law versus the meaning/purpose.

The key is the framing and *application* of the law if it is to any real meaning. Issues like rendition need to be dealt with it's still torture no matter where it takes place.By that definition the US is a torturing nation.

Horus makes a point of the futility or such conversations. On one level there is some merit in what he says. Being a Humanist I have to believe that rational discussions add to the internal pressure of the current moral paradigm. I submit that such growing pressure changes public perceptions and dragging laws and self interested groups with them. Albeit kicking and screaming.

I think torture comes in all shapes and sizes. The form of torture recently associated with the yanks with extraordinary rendition is generally considered useless in gaining consistently reliable intel. But is the torture on the battlefield of a recently captured enemy combatant for info regarding enemy numbers, equipment, location, and intent equally useless?.

Why is it considered inhumanity to torture for whatever reason but not inhuman to send our youth into a battlefront where quite possibly the battle could go to something resembling Hannibal and the Romans in the blink of an eye?.

IS the horror of torture merely a hangover from the 'battle in daylight' only philosophy of British in the past?.

Torture can be used for many reasons and gaining information isn't the most common. Consider sieges. Less than ten years ago in northern Afghanistan there was a siege of a fort that Taliban prisoners revolted and captured. After a bloody drawn out massacre, water was poured down the interior of the inner fort to freeze out the rest in the harsh winter. They also fired rockets point blank down the old style air vents. That was the fight that the young American was found fighting with the Taliban.

I'm glad it's a crime, but given the right circumstances we're all capable of it.

their were rapes and torture in our states and territories institutions, orphanages , girls homes, boys homes, remand centres, state ward homes , church run homes , out of home care and many more institutions dating back many years yet their has been little justice given to many victims of which are forgotten australians , and their are many out their who would agrre with me ,

all i want is justice ,

an apology

and yes componsation

why because i was abused raped and tortured like many other victims who have not got justice from our courts and goverment

i wonder how the perpertrators would like the same treatment they gave u

While huffnpuff speaks of a different torture it still is torture.
It took place, it happened, those who did it went home at night to wife and kids.
They had respectable lives away from work, no one would ever suspect they could be so very evil.
We can indeed do dreadful things, and I am sure the pain huffnpuff tells us of is cemented in place, never to go away, because crys for help always got the answer it can not be true.
That senate inquiry a great deal of exposure, even promises , but nothing, my country must one day say sorry, must one day say never again.
While reluctant to divert this interesting thread ,to narrow discussion, for me the cloak of respectability given to priests, police and prison wardens, used to hide true torture, shouts at us all, we are in part responsible for some of them.
No torture ever ,no feather bedding but torture is inhuman, again do we say as the thread asks its ok if we do it but not if others do??

A number of poster to my mind seem to almost ferociously cling to humanity's lesser side claiming that it's inevitable it's natural.
Perhaps it is but it seems to me as humans we should TRY and raise ourselves from our bestial origins rather than wallowing in them.
Some mistake my posts as 'idealistic pontification'. They simply miss the point....Nothing is inevitable unless by indifference etc, we let it be so.
I just wonder what is the rational/psychological point of such thinking pointlessness of the great wallowing.
Surely we are wiser to take the management 101 line "tell me the problem concisely but offer me detail solutions"
Horus is right in context when saying that there is little point in doing the other.

The same goes with topics like AGW etc. all the whips, sack cloth and ashes won't amount to a hill of beans what we need is actions. Imperfect perhaps, but non the less responsibility our actions and sustained involvement... THAT LEADS TO SOLUTIONS. The one thing we're light on.

StG makes the excellent point >> generally considered useless in gaining consistently reliable intel.<< so why do it?
Torture shouldn't be an option period because in reality it is often fear or revenge driven.
The Abugrade incidents are points in fact the only rational explanation for that was ultimately fear and revenge driven 'we'll show them who's boss' etc.

War is another human failure of what differentiates us from animals and therefore is a dubious justification at best. One should consider it a fruit from a poison tree.

I on the other hand believe that humanity can do just about anything they have a mind to.

A = Ally

F = Foe

A Tortures F

Result:
A + F = F