Is torture an acceptable weapon?

Lately many scandals appeared dealing with the use of torture and secret jails by the CIA all over the world. Some European government were more or less involved in this process (Italy, Poland and Romania). The neo-con hawks of Washington endorsed this actions while the EU and many NGOs stood against it.

What do you think about it?

Are these actions are morally wrong and hence strategically unecessary or are the human rights on the field of the War on Terrorism outdated just as the chevalric ideal used to be?

No, it always proved a failure. It's useless, for each people you torture, you make two more terrorists.

Originally posted by Giannis From a psychological view, the more you torture a person, the more he's losing his will for life, he just's want's his torture to end, and if he breaks he'll give you bad (wrong) information. �

Not really. Under extreme pain you lose your senses and will be more likely to spill your guts. Also through the use of drugs you'll be under pain and all wacked out. They wont let you die. Its not hard for the CIA to get information out of someone. But most modern organizations or groups counter it easily by going off a "need to know" basis and one person doesnt usually hold more information then necessary.

Is it acceptable no. Should it be used yes.


    

So your general point is: "it is immoral because it is unusefull". Yet, why are they still using something that has been proven a failure. Are they stupid (yes it is a very likely option) or aren't we able to face the reality?
Yet, Gundamor made a very good point: it is unlikely a nobody that gets caught be able to tell you more than the little he knows, no matter how terrible the tortures are.

Well I feel relived. Civilisation as we know it still have a few hours to live.

Originally posted by Maharbbal So your general point is: "it is immoral because it is unusefull". Yet, why are they still using something that has been proven a failure. Are they stupid (yes it is a very likely option) or aren't we able to face the reality? Yet, Gundamor made a very good point: it is unlikely a nobody that gets caught be able to tell you more than the little he knows, no matter how terrible the tortures are. Well I feel relived. Civilisation as we know it still have a few hours to live.

Maharbbal wrote:
"Are these actions are morally wrong and hence strategically unecessary or are the human rights on the field of the War on Terrorism outdated just as the chevalric ideal used to be?"

Sorry, Maharbbal, I think your question is a little bit naive. What human rights and moral are we talking about? War is antihuman and immoral in its very essence. Waging war supposes adjusting the possibility to hurt or kill another human being for the sake of some (noble, superior) goal. Using torure is just a little drop in the ocean. I do not consider dropping bombs or using napalm to be more moral than this.
CIA...Hm...
They also have a goal: defending one group of people (innocent citizens) from another group of people that menaces the first one(terrorists, criminals and so on).
I've also heard that they are not too punctilious in their methods. Suppose that they are reasoning in the categories of quantity (and maybe of quality - who knows?).
I mean that from their point of view it might be acceptable to hurt or kill one person in order to save ten or twenty. Anyhow I suppose such philosophy to be highly immoral and pointless. I wonder what will they do if they have to kill one person to save another one. One.
Will they try to determine whose life is more vauable? And how will they do it?

If torture never works, why did so many Resistance figures in occupied Europe commit suicide while they were in custody? Surely some of them at least were concerned that they were losing the will and the ability to resist. And we should not ever forget that Stalin used torture to get his enemies to confess to all sorts of ridiculous crimes during the purges of the 1930s.

Originally posted by Cunctator If torture never works, why did so many Resistance figures in occupied Europe commit suicide while they were in custody? Surely some of them at least were concerned that they were losing the will and the ability to resist. And we should not ever forget that Stalin used torture to get his enemies to confess to all sorts of ridiculous crimes during the purges of the 1930s.   I am not sure anyone really knows if torture works or not. Doesn't it depend on the type of torture that is used, the nature of those who are inflicting it, and the purpose for which it is employed?