Torture is ok :/

[Tom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4347694.stm

If they accept this, and use of information gleaned from torture (which is hardly a reliable source of information), I think my last ounce of respect for law and authority in this country would disappear.

Disgusting that they should even consider it tbh. Its morally reprehensible to me that countries still practice torture on people, and for our government to condone this isn't really any different than trading with S.Africa during the Apartheid years.

 

[TdC]

very. good thing the Lord Chancellor wants nothing of it. still, it wouldn't be the first time a government found a way around it. I recently have seen a documentary on interrogation and impho the line between persuading someone to give you information and *making* someone give you information is extremely vague.

just because you don't see any red-hot pokers and pliers about doesn't mean it isn't torture.

 

[Mazling]

Beat most people enough, and they will say whatever you want them to, or say whatever they think it will take to get you to stop beating them. Civilised, are we? Bollocks. The U.S. is complicit in this, as ever. I hope we do not follow suit on this issue.

 

[Damini]

I dont know - much as I abhore the use of torture, I do believe that on some occasions it can be justified. If you just boil it down to a one on one level - if someone had hold of your child, your partner, your friend, and you needed to know where they are to save them, what lengths would you go to to find out? I know as an individual, I could become a monster to stop something terrible happening to someone I love. So then do I oppose torture due to simply a matter of scale? Or is it the distance of emotion, from love to civic duty? Or is it the possibility of torturing the wrong person? Is it the possibility of torture for reasons and ethics I don't condone?

It's a messed up thought. You have a dirty bomb due to go off in England somewhere, sometime in the next 24 hours. Fatalities would be in the tens of thousands. You have one suspect, who is refusing to talk. What do you do? Alternatively, intelligence gleamed from a different suspect in a different country through torture tells you exactly where that bomb is, and when it will be going off. Do you just stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la, la la, la la, I can't hear you!" and just stare intently at a map, hoping to work it out for yourself? Do you act on the information, but then when it is verified, have to let the terrorist you had go free as the information you were given isn't admissable in court?

It's weird times that call these questions into play. Way back when armies used to march straight towards each other on battle fields, no running, straight lines, set time, set rules, and even in retreat you marched backwards, still holding eye contact with the enemy. Now we have suicide bombers, schools of children being massacred, hotels being blown up, planes being hijacked, plots involving ricin, and the rules of engagement are blurry at best.

In principle, I strongly disappprove of torture. However, my life on the line, my families, my partners, my friends, hell, even a complete stranger, if it was my call, in an empty room, then I would resort to it to save a life. If someone else made that same call for me, I'd use that information in a heart beat. Not quite sure where morally that leaves me.

 

[MYstIC G]

*steals WPKenny*

 

[Damini]

*steals WPKenny*

*Tortures Mystic G*


*Feels conflicted*


*Shrugs, and continues anyway*

 

[Cyradix]

*Tortures Mystic G*


*Feels conflicted*


*Shrugs, and continues anyway*

<Tapes the whole thing and sells it on the internet>

 

[old.Tohtori]

Depends on the situation.

I wouldn't mind if they tortured "bad guys" to save "good guys", but as goverments go, any guy with wooly cap and a loose jacket is a terrorist these days.

Not dissing england, but as things are going, i feel rather lucky i live in the frozen arse hole of the earth. Aka finland.

 

[DaGaffer]

I dont know - much as I abhore the use of torture, I do believe that on some occasions it can be justified. If you just boil it down to a one on one level - if someone had hold of your child, your partner, your friend, and you needed to know where they are to save them, what lengths would you go to to find out? I know as an individual, I could become a monster to stop something terrible happening to someone I love. So then do I oppose torture due to simply a matter of scale? Or is it the distance of emotion, from love to civic duty? Or is it the possibility of torturing the wrong person? Is it the possibility of torture for reasons and ethics I don't condone?

It's a messed up thought. You have a dirty bomb due to go off in England somewhere, sometime in the next 24 hours. Fatalities would be in the tens of thousands. You have one suspect, who is refusing to talk. What do you do? Alternatively, intelligence gleamed from a different suspect in a different country through torture tells you exactly where that bomb is, and when it will be going off. Do you just stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la, la la, la la, I can't hear you!" and just stare intently at a map, hoping to work it out for yourself? Do you act on the information, but then when it is verified, have to let the terrorist you had go free as the information you were given isn't admissable in court?

It's weird times that call these questions into play. Way back when armies used to march straight towards each other on battle fields, no running, straight lines, set time, set rules, and even in retreat you marched backwards, still holding eye contact with the enemy. Now we have suicide bombers, schools of children being massacred, hotels being blown up, planes being hijacked, plots involving ricin, and the rules of engagement are blurry at best.

In principle, I strongly disappprove of torture. However, my life on the line, my families, my partners, my friends, hell, even a complete stranger, if it was my call, in an empty room, then I would resort to it to save a life. If someone else made that same call for me, I'd use that information in a heart beat. Not quite sure where morally that leaves me.

Kind of see your point except for one thing, in the circumstances you're talking about it probably wouldn't work very well anyway. You're not dealing with rational people but you are dealing with committed people. Torturing people who want to be martyrs in the first place probably doesn't yield results worth selling our souls for.

 

[TdC]

decending to the level of torture makes you a badguy sadly enough. being civilized isn't easy is it?

equally sadly enough, the average government knows that it sometimes has to do things that aren't particularly in the humanitarian good books. not that it does any good usually. I'm glad it's not me who has to decide what's what in the book of things that are allowed (but frowned on)(tm).

 

[Will]

The arguement is not about using evidence obtained by torture to prevent terrorist incidents. If they knew there was a dirty bomb, someone would go round and stop it. The arguement is about whether people can be convicted based on evidence obtained under torture.

I think you all already know my opinion.

 

[TdC]

*apply electro-shocks to Will's dangley bits*

 

[old.Tohtori]

*apply electro-shocks to Will's dangley bits*

*Smells Will's smoking dangley bits and confesses to all bad things ever*

 

[Damini]

The arguement is not about using evidence obtained by torture to prevent terrorist incidents. If they knew there was a dirty bomb, someone would go round and stop it. The arguement is about whether people can be convicted based on evidence obtained under torture.

I think you all already know my opinion.

The argument is all part and parcel, all to do with whether or not you are *seen* to act upon such information, and legitimise it's use by including it as evidence within legal trials. And like I said, if you act on information, find out its true, can you then really be expected to let this guy go? Or will you just manufacture another scenario to imprison him under anyway?

The reason the question even exists in the first place is because torture is such an emotive subject. Yes, people can say anything to remove the torture, but then people have made false confessions under interrogation before, and interrogation is still permitted. It's not the possibility of false information thats the problem, its the nature of the way its derived.

 

[Chilly]

how about mental torture? It is used commonly by british soldiers during interrogations. Making people sit on pitch black for days, then playing white noise for 10 hours then flashing strobe lights at them, turns your brain to mush and works retty well I hear.

It may as well be physical torture, although I daresay probably not quite as painful.

 

[ECA]

Torture very rarely works.
People will confess to anything if you apply a sufficient level of pain and a degree of suggestion.

Fucking stupid. Torture is obviously legal anyway, or teenybop bands would be banned.

 

[Chilly]

Well, torture DOES work. I'm not going to tell you my pin number and online banking details, but I will if you threaten me with a weapon or stick a couple of thumb screws on.

 

[Sar]

Anyone comes near me with a pair of pliers and I'll admit to starting WW1 ffs.

 

[Will]

The argument is all part and parcel, all to do with whether or not you are *seen* to act upon such information, and legitimise it's use by including it as evidence within legal trials. And like I said, if you act on information, find out its true, can you then really be expected to let this guy go? Or will you just manufacture another scenario to imprison him under anyway?

Personally, I feel that if we were told a bomb was due to detonate in central London, police should act on that. If information comes up that is not connected to the initial tortured evidence, then that should be admissible in court.

What I don't agree with is using evidence obtained under torture, or coming from countries which regularly torture prisoners. I also don't agree with the tipping of winks from our intelligence services to these countries, to pull people, torture them on our behalf, and then using the evidence.

The reason the question even exists in the first place is because torture is such an emotive subject. Yes, people can say anything to remove the torture, but then people have made false confessions under interrogation before, and interrogation is still permitted. It's not the possibility of false information thats the problem, its the nature of the way its derived.

For the reason I've used above, the tipping of winks from our intelligence services, as well as the fact I don't agree with torture under any circumstances, I'm against it. If we are a country that says torture is bad, then we shouldn't use it. Ever. I'm against the nature of it, as well as the accuracy of it.

 

[Bodhi]

Jack Bauer's used it before, didn't see anyone tell him it was wrong.

 

[Ch3tan]

Jack Bauer's used it before, didn't see anyone tell him it was wrong.

LOL. I soo wanted to post something about Jack using it in 24, but didnt want to drag the thread away from seriousness. Thanks for doing it for me

 

[nath]

Jack Bauer's used it before, didn't see anyone tell him it was wrong.

You should be paying more attention then - loads of people have told him it's wrong and yet he does it anyway - and that's because he's a bad motherfucker.

Despite that, I agree with Will.

 

[throdgrain]

I agree with Jack tbh. Kill em all, let god decide

 

[andyfromspace]

sucks that our govt thinks it's above the geneva convention. they are undoing years of humanitarian progress.

 

[Will]

We're only copying our lords and masters, the US. We're either with them, or we're all terrorists.