what an OZ City Councillor said about terrorists

[Ken L]

Scale it down a bit and replace the A bomb with a roadside IED.

You intercept an unencrypted telephone call saying that a very special ambush has been set for UK troops on the main highway out of Basra and using cell phone location technology, you manage to bag a member of the local militia (with the phone still in his pocket) who you have good reason to believe can tell you where the IED's are.

 

This is exactly the same senario as the A bomb but scaled down a bit.

 

Do you torture the guy to find out where the bombs are or do you put him in prison and send a patrol out anyway ?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Ken L

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Ken, in the circumstances you describe I would be forced to agree with you. If, for example, someone had kidnapped and hidden my daughter and I had to use force to get him to reveal her whereabouts, I would kick him into a bloody mess if that's what it took so I suppose I could be rightly accused of being hypocritical. However, although there may be a case for trying to obtain specific known information most of the torture referred to just seems to be trying to find out if the suspect knows anything. The other problem is that given the nature of the beast any information obtained by torture is at best unreliable and at worst misleading. There is also the problem that allowing the use of torture for one specific case, where it may be justified then means it is easier to use a bit of torture where the justification may not be as great, and so on until torture becomes the norm. When that becomes the case the US invades you to effect "regime change"

If this response seems muddled it is because my feelings are not completely clear cut. I know and believe torture to be wrong but I can see cases where even I would use it.

 

Its not muddled at all, you are talking about torturing someone when you KNOW they have the info you require, and possibly that the info is time critical. Big difference to torturing a suspect who you have no real evidence against.

[gozzer]

Scale it down a bit and replace the A bomb with a roadside IED.

You intercept an unencrypted telephone call saying that a very special ambush has been set for UK troops on the main highway out of Basra and using cell phone location technology, you manage to bag a member of the local militia (with the phone still in his pocket) who you have good reason to believe can tell you where the IED's are.

 

This is exactly the same senario as the A bomb but scaled down a bit.

 

Do you torture the guy to find out where the bombs are or do you put him in prison and send a patrol out anyway ?

 

You could always make them walk a couple of hundred yards in front of the patrol Ken.

 

John.

[Ken L]

Its not muddled at all, you are talking about torturing someone when you KNOW they have the info you require, and possibly that the info is time critical. Big difference to torturing a suspect who you have no real evidence against.

 

Absolutely. IMO legitimate use of torture is limited to time bound inteligence that is required to save lives. Even if you are forced to do that, I have grave concerns about that same evidence being admisable in any subsequent criminal conviction - that way lie the evils of Inquisitor Tocamada and his ilk.

[five bellies]

The awnser has got to be No, I have no philosophical dilema on this one it is proven inafective, secondly most inteligence would be of no use after 24 hrs any way.

[GlennB]

Yeah torture a confession out of 'em

Never mind if it's the truth or not....funny how these 'supposed stories capture the imaginations of some people, guess they are not interested in the truth as well.

 

Yep. About 1,000 years ago mankind learned that torture provides the answer that the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. It's a good way to stop the pain, I suppose.

 

Since then we've understood that torture is - in fact - just fun for anyone seriously into torturing.

 

Drugs are hugely more effective.

Edited March 18, 2009 by GlennB

[GlennB]

Difficult scenarios do emerge however.

Would it have been better to have tortured a few Iraqis to find out whether Saddam really had WMD, or do what we did and invade and kill loads of innocent civilians just to prove he didn't ?

 

False dilemma (I realise you realise ) . Hans Blick and co had access to Iraq to check out WMD and were busily failing to find any. Not surprising, 'cos there weren't any..

 

Neither torture nor invasion was necessary. I recall a newspaper cartoon at the time .. GWB is wiring up the door to Iraq with explosives ... Blick is standing there saying "But it isn't locked".

 

Here's a thought .. what if it turns out that the victim of torture is totally innocent and has no knowledge of the subject. Based on "an eye for an eye" principle, let any torturer - or those who authorise it - suffer the same pain.

 

Seems fair to me.

Edited March 18, 2009 by GlennB

[chesters1]

raghead

strange the lack of bile against the word when its not in my post

confession is far easier to find than evidence to prove guilt hence torture will always be used to get one

Edited March 18, 2009 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Yep. About 1,000 years ago mankind learned that torture provides the answer that the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. It's a good way to stop the pain, I suppose.

 

Since then we've understood that torture is - in fact - just fun for anyone seriously into torturing.

 

Drugs are hugely more effective.

Torture does not need to involve pain, waterboarding doesn't hurt, it just fools the brain and body that you are going to drown in the next 5 seconds. Not that that makes it right.

[barry luxton]

False dilemma (I realise you realise ) . Hans Blick and co had access to Iraq to check out WMD and were busily failing to find any. Not surprising, 'cos there weren't any..

 

Neither torture nor invasion was necessary. I recall a newspaper cartoon at the time .. GWB is wiring up the door to Iraq with explosives ... Blick is standing there saying "But it isn't locked".

 

I distinctly remember Blix and co being run wragged by the Iraq's at the time and because of them he wasn't allowed to do his job properly. In the end he had to withdraw without conclusion. Might have been a different outcome if sadham let him get on without hinderence. So sadham was not blameless,we all know the outcome, he could have easily have done something to prevent it, but choose not to.