US petition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.

---

I think that the issue boils down to the actual impact of this petition.

Will it prevent what happened at Abu Garab? No, that was already illegal.

Most of us scoff at it as a politicians game.

Being opposed to laws which prevent torture without exception does not mean one is "pro-torture" similar to people who are against anti-abortion laws are not pro-abortion.

Certain situations merit certain actions, which my conscience has no problem with, as I have given examples for in this thread.

I don't want absolute rules about when and where to torture, I just want our military leaders to be given the latitude to use the appropriate force necessary and for this to be at their discretion.

I think the Geneva Convention was a fine way for how to provide accomadation for the average soldier. It gives piece of mind to families, on both sides, that their sons are not in tiny cages being starved and beaten as a routine.

Nobody has any problem recognizing that Abu Garab was unacceptable and it wasn't the "rules" which permitted this, it was enforcement of the rules.

Torture, as I have defined in specific cases, will always occur, no matter the country, no matter the law.

We all have a gestalt of what is appropriate or defensible.

If we approve legislature that says "no" to torture, no exceptions, then the man who saves his fellow soldiers by inflicting pain on a suicide bomber to defuse his weapon has to deal with war crimes charges.

War presents unique opportunities, every country and it's citizens have a threshold which dictates what actions are defensible and which are inacceptable.

Why support something that is just a political game, that will tied the hands of those who need to get things done, perhaps in a way we don't want to think about.

So much is done by our countries by our sectret services, for the sake of our futures, that we don't know about. We have a sense something is going on, but we don't really want to know, lest we have to admit to our sins.

The US has placed many South American dictators in charge in the last century, that have been just as bad as Saddam. All countries are selfishly and cruelly looking out for themselves, we all know this, but pretend not to, just to think we are somehow civilized and clean.

Being "civilized" is a complete joke. Strip any man of those things he takes for granted- food, clothing, shelter, security and you will see the true animal bare his fangs.

There is nothing civilized about man, that is just an act we portray when we our basic needs are satisfied.

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.

Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:

---

That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.

---

Fact of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.

---

Fact of life.

---

So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

---

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

---

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

---

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

---

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

---

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

---

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

---

When is torture necessary?:huh:

Never

Its counter-productive.

You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.

He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

---

When is torture necessary?:huh:

---

You tell me, it's you that's saying it's necessary, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

---

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

---

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:

Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.

Our example:

You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.

What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.

Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

---

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:

Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.

Our example:

You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.

What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.

Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.

---

Quote:

---

You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.

---

Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Fact of life.

---

So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.

---

We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:

I can see instances where one would have to resort to torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

---

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.

---

It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.

Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.

I think most people can see the difference.

Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Never

Its counter-productive.

You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.

He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.

---

Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:

Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.

Our example:

You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.

What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.

Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.

---

Quote:

---

You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.

---

Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.

---

The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.

---

We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:

---

However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.

---

It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.

Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.

I think most people can see the difference.

Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.

---

It's a good thing EU politicians would never lie!

Like when they say the same thing about slavery, yet the UK is a human trafficing hub for the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.

---

No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.

It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.

I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.

Ready, action!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:

---

However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.

---

They sure aren't necessary.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.

---

No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.

It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.

I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in you comfy home telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.

Ready, action!

---

He never answered the question about abortion that I posed ages ago.

An aside..
If abortion is wrong then in cases of rape or incest, abortion is still wrong 'cause you are killing a child.

Actually I have it wrong as far as him answering. JP answered that stuff like that has to be taken on case by case basis.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.

---

Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.

---

The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.

---

It's not necessary all the time.

It would have to go on a case by case basis.
:ermm:
What speaks volumes is that when it comes down to it, you would curl up and die and allow your children to die (and your wife and friends).

I would not.

The problem that I see regarding torture is that I think governments sometimes have a low justification for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.

---

No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.

It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.

I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.

Ready, action!

---

I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.

---

On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.

Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.

On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.

On must simply make a choice.

You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.

To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.

Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.

---

On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.

Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.

On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.

On must simply make a choice.

You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.

To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.

Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.

---

Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.

Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.

On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.

On must simply make a choice.

You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.

To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.

Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.

---

Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.

---

Sometimes it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.

---

Sometimes it does.

---

At least you admit that you feel that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Sometimes it does.

---

At least you admit that you feel that way.

---

CaptainObvious.

You gotta take things on a case by case basis.

Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.

The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture

Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.

The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

At least you admit that you feel that way.

---

CaptainObvious.

You gotta take things on a case by case basis.

Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.

The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture

Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.

The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture

---

WWJD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

CaptainObvious.

You gotta take things on a case by case basis.

Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.

The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture

Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.

The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture

---

WWJD

---

A very good question, that.

To continue, what would your reaction be should you discover that your government (a signatory to the non-torture/human-rights instrument you have quoted) has indeed engaged in torture of purported participants in an imminent terrorist act?

I guess what I'm asking is whether (from your comfy home) you could consider for us the possibility that merely thinking a course of action correct (which quality may even be philosophically provable) does not preclude a human failure and departure from the desired behavior?

Would you be just, like, totally destroyed, and have to move to Canada?

And what about the drugs, BTW?

If there were no ill-effect, that is...

[QUOTE=Agrajag]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.

---

No a choice has to made. Whether you do it by acting or not acting, a choice is made.

What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession. Did you read this in a nice little book and decide that it was some absolute truth which had no exception. Seems to me, it, like any piece of sound advice, at some point it breaks down.

Seems to me you just keep repeating it like some Tourettian mantra and just as the Tourettes' child can do amazingly quick math calculations, in application of this to the real world, he can't even figure our how much a candy bar costs.

Philosophy/ reality must at some point meet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.

---

I think it's a glib thing.

I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.

Which is the substance of your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.

---

I think it's a glib thing.

I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.

Which is the substance of your argument.

---

So you let those people die?

Yes/No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

I think it's a glib thing.

I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.

Which is the substance of your argument.

---

So you let those people die?

Yes/No.

---

Still the same argument "the end justifies the means.".

If that's OK with you, cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Never

Its counter-productive.

You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.

He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.

---

Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:

---

I never said that.

I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.

You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.

Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.

There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.

I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.

However there are surer means of getting the information.

Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.

Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.

Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.

The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.


As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?

Would you trust the numbers he gave you?

Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.

The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.

With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?

Would you trust the numbers he gave you?

Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.

The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.

With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.

---

Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.

You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.

We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.

I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?

Yes/No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:

---

I never said that.

I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.

You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.

Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.

There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.

I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.

However there are surer means of getting the information.

Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.

Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.

Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.

The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.


As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?

Would you trust the numbers he gave you?

Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.

The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.

With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.

---

Good lord, I don't advocate mass torture to possibly come up with a tidbit of nothing.

I know some scenarios where I can see using it. It's a last resort type thang ya see.

The thing is there are a number of scenarios that are considered torture and I disagree with that.

NOT feeding a prisoner properly springs to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?

Would you trust the numbers he gave you?

Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.

The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.

With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.

---

Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.

---

Actually he has simply pointed out what is woefully obvious, if someone doesn't want to give you info and yet you force them to talk, chances are they are going to lie. Its not rocket science.
In the scenario you gave it also strikes me as unlikely that you would know who the bomber is (i rather doubt you'd be waiting till a trial has been carried out) so basically you're not only suggesting torture, but also presumption of guilt. Chances are you'd have a list of suspects, most of whom are innocent of this particular crime. How many would you willingly torture to get an answer?
Busy, if it was your family then obviously theres nothing you wouldn't consider, but its like the death penalty argument (ie you would want to kill someone who had murdered a family member) we're talking about what the state will allow and will carry out and the argument is therefore about what fairly impassionate and uninvolved people should be doing.
Would you be ok with torturing americans on the mainland US?
Legitimising torture is basically the same as popularising it.
edit: 1/2 the quote was missing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?

Would you trust the numbers he gave you?

Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.

The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.

With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.

---

Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.

You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.

We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.

I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?

Yes/No.

---

No.

Even if my kids were in there. In fact i'd be LESS likely to use torture if they were.

The only time torture can give reliable intelligence of any sort is when enough people are being "interrogated" that a pattern emerges. How many people have you interrogated before seeing a pattern?

How many were innocent, or at least neutral, until you turned them into enemies?

And the again the moral issue... the terrorist, in his mind, is acting for the best in the long run, even if you dont agree with him. He is justifying the end with the means.

What gives you the arrogance to think your right when using the same tecniques that you condemn in them?

In addition.. once you have a reputation for using those methods, it is very hard to get rid of that reputation and mistrust.

Just look at our countries now to see this as fact.

How many years sinse slavery was abolished? And yet the whole of the western world is still living with the distrust and sometimes hatred between races on that one issue.

Turkey used to have a horrendous record on Human Rights. It is infinitely better than it was, and yet its neighbours still distrust it and will for years. Hell, they cant even get into the EU... even Cyprus (which isnt recognised as a country by some EU members) managed that, as did a fair few Eastern European countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.

---

Actually he has simply pointed out what is woefully obvious, if someone doesn't want to give you info and yet you force them to talk, chances are they are going to lie. Its not rocket science.
In the scenario you gave it also strikes me as unlikely that you would know who the bomber is (i rather doubt you'd be waiting till a trial has been carried out) so basically you're not only suggesting torture, but also presumption of guilt. Chances are you'd have a list of suspects, most of whom are innocent of this particular crime. How many would you willingly torture to get an answer?

---

What could possibly be woefully and obviously lacking in a hypothetical scenario? It is a mental excercise to test a point. Got it?

You have a situation, and you must make a decision.

What can you live with? These guys about to die are the ones you have fought with, shit with, bonded with since boot camp. You caught the guy who planted the bomb. That bomb is going to go off.

Do you want your Sargent to tell you that if you so much as touch your prisioner you will get Court Martialed and jailed or do want the option to do what you can to save the people you have sworn to protect.

I torture and save my men. Torture is a last option and one that should be left to the people in charge as a judgement call. A judgement they should be required to defend, as I have this one.

You never know what situations may arise in a war zone and what decisions may need to be made. I have created an example of such a situation and have stated that "no torture, no exceptions" doesn't work for me.

I take exception to the the no exception rule.

The only thing that motivates a man who is anxious to die, is not letting him do so and letting him feel very much alive, through pain.

Yes/no.

No Hobbes,

your talking of beating the crap out of someone, not torture.

I think everyone has felt like that occasionally, and quite frankly given your example, so would i.

Whilst it would yield little in the way of intelligence, it would make me feel better. That doesnt make it right.

Torture is a skill, not beating the shit out of someone.

Im sure you know this, as you do know your history... Torturers were not your run of the mill thugs, and still aren't. They must apply just the right amount of pain that the subject doesnt lose consiousness.. If you know exactly how to do this, then you scare me.

I'd say that 99% of trained soldiers couldnt. (excluding special forces)