Torture...is it necessary?

[maqroll]

You could muddy this argument by asking just what constitutes torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is food deprivation torture? There is all kinds of wiggle room inherent in the torture debate, and that's how the torturers like it, I think.

I'm sure it's possible to glean legitimate information from a tortured prisoner, but how often can you count on receiving legit info from tortured prisoners? 50% of the time? Is that enough to justify the practice, one that the western world has sworn to abstain from?

Are we putting our own troops in greater peril by torturing our prisoners?

If an enlightened, modern, democratic West really wants to set an example to the rest of the world, then any form of torture should be completely illegal, at all times.

Put more money and resources into intelligence, and take it from there...

[Wainy316]

I think when something as important as your families lives are in danger I would estimate that all ability for rational thought and therefore morals, would go out the window.

[tonyh29]

I don't believe you in that scenario personally. You'd have to be insane in my opinion. I don't see any positives from saying no in that situation.

Family lives over terrorist uncomfort for me, maybe I'm crazy though. :shock:

Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human

But , Reality is that if the situation was real , they would , and they are deluded If they think otherwise

[DiegoD]

I don't believe you in that scenario personally. You'd have to be insane in my opinion. I don't see any positives from saying no in that situation.

Family lives over terrorist uncomfort for me, maybe I'm crazy though. :shock:

Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human

But , Reality is that if the situation was real , they would , and they are deluded If they think otherwise

Just because you have a stance and cant understand why people think otherwise does not mean that do not!

I don't believe in torture, in your hypothetical if someone is crazy enough to do said thing then i doubt he'll give up truthful information within the 2hrs and nothing would be gained from it.

[tonyh29]

Ok , So i guess we are back to the hypothetical let's just all sit around and have a cup of tea whilst the children die? He may not give up the information , BUT there is a chance that he will and rest assured as a parent you'd rather live with the consequences of having tortured the bloke than live with the consequences of could I have saved my child

I fully understand the reasons behind not being in favour of toture but it's easy when you are remote from the situation ... Heck put a vegetarian on a desert island where the only food is cow and pig and see how long their meat is murder stance lasts once they are starving, you think they are going to sit on the island and die or do you think Percy pig is going to be on a fire with a spike up his butt ?

[maqroll]

Ok , So i guess we are back to the hypothetical let's just all sit around and have a cup of tea whilst the children die? He may not give up the information , BUT there is a chance that he will and rest assured as a parent you'd rather live with the consequences of having tortured the bloke than live with the consequences of could I have saved my child

I fully understand the reasons behind not being in favour of toture but it's easy when you are remote from the situation ... Heck put a vegetarian on a desert island where the only food is cow and pig and see how long their meat is murder stance lasts once they are starving, you think they are going to sit on the island and die or do you think Percy pig is going to be on a fire with a spike up his butt ?

But what if the pig is really made of granola?

[TrentVilla]

Its one of those things I don't think anyone is comfortable with the thought of or wants done in their name. It is though sadly in the world we live in, in extreme circumstances a required evil. As Tony says sometimes the ends justify the means even it the means are rather unpalletable to us.

[wiggyrichard]

Why do there seem to be an increasing number of suspects who seem to be so committed to their cause that they will engage in terrorist activities? It couldn't be anything to do with the use of torture, could it?

I think we are in a situation where the actions of people like Dubya have contributed greatly to the radicalisation of large numbers of people, and Blair's support has meant that we have become targets for their actions where we were much less likely to be targets before.

Claiming that the use of torture has prevented one or more possible atrocities conveniently sidesteps the issue of whether the atrocity was in the first place planned partly because of the use of torture. Dubya casts himself as our protector, when in fact he is the exact opposite.

Thats bollox mate.

So your saying the more we torture people to extract information, the more terrorists there will be produced?

Bin Laden has never been tortured by the USA...yet he still arranged for 3000 innocent people to be killed.

That's one of the finest non-sequiturs I've ever seen. Congratulations!

Why is it a non-sequitur? :?

So your trying to say that in some part all these terrorist acts are fuelled by acts of torture? Bin Laden's motive for 9/11 was torture of his 'brothers'?

9/11 had feck all to do with the torture of Islamic fanatics.

So i stand by what i said, your opening post is bollox mate!

[peterms]

Why is it a non-sequitur? :?

So your trying to say that in some part all these terrorist acts are fuelled by acts of torture? Bin Laden's motive for 9/11 was torture of his 'brothers'?

9/11 had feck all to do with the torture of Islamic fanatics.

So i stand by what i said, your opening post is bollox mate!

What I said was that torture is one of the things which contributes to the radicalisation of large numbers of people. So yes, the more we torture people, the more we contribute to creating a climate where recruitment to extreme positions is possible.

It is not to say that only people who have personally been tortured will engage in extreme acts.

That's why your remark is a non-sequitur.

On the main point, consider for example things like this:

“Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier”.

The post-mortem video-statement from the alleged “ring-leader” of the London 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Siddique Khan, which was shown on Al Jazeera on 1 September 2005, leaves no doubt that he believed that he was “a soldier” at “war” with the West.

(Taken as the point of departure of this study of terrorism and the role of radicalisation).

Obviously it's not the only factor. Things like invading Iraq, other acts of interference in sovereign countries, social exclusion, stigmatisation of Islam in the popular press and so on all act as contributory factors.

The idea that our actions have played no part in this, that it's all internally generated by religious extremism independent of our actions, is pathetically self-excusing. It's also foolish, since it obscures understanding of what causes radicalisation and what could be done to counter it; and therefore, it's dangerous as well.

[legov]

Why is it a non-sequitur? :?

So your trying to say that in some part all these terrorist acts are fuelled by acts of torture? Bin Laden's motive for 9/11 was torture of his 'brothers'?

9/11 had feck all to do with the torture of Islamic fanatics.

So i stand by what i said, your opening post is bollox mate!

What I said was that torture is one of the things which contributes to the radicalisation of large numbers of people. So yes, the more we torture people, the more we contribute to creating a climate where recruitment to extreme positions is possible.

It is not to say that only people who have personally been tortured will engage in extreme acts.

That's why your remark is a non-sequitur.

On the main point, consider for example things like this:

“Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier”.

The post-mortem video-statement from the alleged “ring-leader” of the London 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Siddique Khan, which was shown on Al Jazeera on 1 September 2005, leaves no doubt that he believed that he was “a soldier” at “war” with the West.

(Taken as the point of departure of this study of terrorism and the role of radicalisation).

Obviously it's not the only factor. Things like invading Iraq, other acts of interference in sovereign countries, social exclusion, stigmatisation of Islam in the popular press and so on all act as contributory factors.

The idea that our actions have played no part in this, that it's all internally generated by religious extremism independent of our actions, is pathetically self-excusing. It's also foolish, since it obscures understanding of what causes radicalisation and what could be done to counter it; and therefore, it's dangerous as well.

Eloquently put.

[wiggyrichard]

Yeah thats all good and well, but in reality it doesnt matter how we got to this stage and why it all started does it? We are lumbered with these fanatics who's sole aim is to bring heartache and terror to the west. You make it sound like torture is one of the main contributors to the desire to cause pain to the west? This is the part i cant get my head round. Why do we torture these people in the first place? Was it not because they were planning to terrorise our shores and we needed to put a stop to this?

It doesnt matter know why it all started.

[tonyh29]

Ok , So i guess we are back to the hypothetical let's just all sit around and have a cup of tea whilst the children die? He may not give up the information , BUT there is a chance that he will and rest assured as a parent you'd rather live with the consequences of having tortured the bloke than live with the consequences of could I have saved my child

I fully understand the reasons behind not being in favour of toture but it's easy when you are remote from the situation ... Heck put a vegetarian on a desert island where the only food is cow and pig and see how long their meat is murder stance lasts once they are starving, you think they are going to sit on the island and die or do you think Percy pig is going to be on a fire with a spike up his butt ?

But what if the pig is really made of granola?

then i think i'd build a boat or swim for it :-)

[peterms]

Yeah thats all good and well, but in reality it doesnt matter how we got to this stage and why it all started does it? We are lumbered with these fanatics who's sole aim is to bring heartache and terror to the west. You make it sound like torture is one of the main contributors to the desire to cause pain to the west? This is the part i cant get my head round. Why do we torture these people in the first place? Was it not because they were planning to terrorise our shores and we needed to put a stop to this?

It doesnt matter know why it all started.

Of course it matters. You seem to think that we've arrived at a state of affairs where there are terrorist threats and the issue is whether we can intercept them before they materialise, and that's all we have to think about.

The situation is evolving every day. Things that we do now will contribute either to escalation or reduction of the threats we will face in the future. That's a matter of choice.

We can't just turn off the tap overnight, but we can act now to reduce future threats, in the same way that in Northern Ireland, there are still threats, but recruitment and radicalisation are significantly reduced compared to say 15 years ago.

Yes it is a factor in recruitment of terrorists. I would have thought that's beyond any serious doubt, listening to what the terrorists themselves say, looking at the recruitment material, and considering systematic studies of what leads to radicalisation. Why do you doubt it?

Why do we torture in the first place? Many reasons. Some people just like to impose their will on others, and they tend to gravitate towards situations where they can exercise authoritarian control. In extreme situations, where they think they can get away with it, they will go as far as torture. Others get caught up in a situation, and go along with the prevailing culture - some of the people at Abu Ghraib, or those UK soldiers who may face war crimes prosecutions, may fall into this group.

Maybe some of them actually act with good motives, thinking they might prevent some atrocity, and maybe they are either so caught up in the moment that they don't see the longer term impact, maybe they think it's beyond their pay grade to think strategically, maybe they just have no understanding and awareness of the effect of what they are doing.

Then there is the institutionalised form of humiliation and torture, of which Guantanamo is probably the best example. A propaganda gift for people seeking to recruit terrorists - utterly self-defeating and stupid.

By the way, the people who get tortured may or may not be planning to carry out threats against us. So let's not think "If they weren't guilty, we wouldn't do it to them".

[claret75]

No pain, no pleasure...it'll do em good in the long run.

[wiggyrichard]

Yeah thats all good and well, but in reality it doesnt matter how we got to this stage and why it all started does it? We are lumbered with these fanatics who's sole aim is to bring heartache and terror to the west. You make it sound like torture is one of the main contributors to the desire to cause pain to the west? This is the part i cant get my head round. Why do we torture these people in the first place? Was it not because they were planning to terrorise our shores and we needed to put a stop to this?

It doesnt matter know why it all started.

Of course it matters. You seem to think that we've arrived at a state of affairs where there are terrorist threats and the issue is whether we can intercept them before they materialise, and that's all we have to think about.

The situation is evolving every day. Things that we do now will contribute either to escalation or reduction of the threats we will face in the future. That's a matter of choice.

We can't just turn off the tap overnight, but we can act now to reduce future threats, in the same way that in Northern Ireland, there are still threats, but recruitment and radicalisation are significantly reduced compared to say 15 years ago.

Yes it is a factor in recruitment of terrorists. I would have thought that's beyond any serious doubt, listening to what the terrorists themselves say, looking at the recruitment material, and considering systematic studies of what leads to radicalisation. Why do you doubt it?

Why do we torture in the first place? Many reasons. Some people just like to impose their will on others, and they tend to gravitate towards situations where they can exercise authoritarian control. In extreme situations, where they think they can get away with it, they will go as far as torture. Others get caught up in a situation, and go along with the prevailing culture - some of the people at Abu Ghraib, or those UK soldiers who may face war crimes prosecutions, may fall into this group.

Maybe some of them actually act with good motives, thinking they might prevent some atrocity, and maybe they are either so caught up in the moment that they don't see the longer term impact, maybe they think it's beyond their pay grade to think strategically, maybe they just have no understanding and awareness of the effect of what they are doing.

Then there is the institutionalised form of humiliation and torture, of which Guantanamo is probably the best example. A propaganda gift for people seeking to recruit terrorists - utterly self-defeating and stupid.

By the way, the people who get tortured may or may not be planning to carry out threats against us. So let's not think "If they weren't guilty, we wouldn't do it to them".

Are we not torturing people now to prevent future attacks? I dont know what some people expect? Maybe Obama should invite Bin Laden to tea so they can agree to disagree, brush it all under the carpet and let it all just blow over? So torturing a couple of 'brothers' gives them the right to murder 3000 innocent human beings?

You walking a very very shakey line of almost saying that it is 'our' fault that 9/11 happened because we started the who affair?

You also talk about maybe they didnt realise the long term effects and act with good motives, i think flying a couple of jets into some skyscrapers is pretty self explanitory.

[tonyh29]

so they can agree to disagree, brush it all under the carpet and let it all just blow over?

it's what they did with Mandela and Adams :-)

[snowychap]

Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human

Grow up, Tony.

But , Reality is that if the situation was real , they would , and they are deluded If they think otherwise

Nonsense. Your response here completely confirms the intention of you asking your hypothetical question.

It wasn't to debate the issue, it wasn't a real thought experiment, it was you trying to trap someone into giving one specific answer - when you didn't receive that answer, you have dismissed the other as, effectively, a lie (in reality they are deluded if they would not answer in the way in which I want them to).

In reality, you're talking cock.

[wiggyrichard]

Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human

Grow up, Tony.

He is right the Snowy and it happens all the time on the forum. Too many people try to pretend that they are of the upmost moral standing, well thats all good and well in the make believe world of an internet forum. People harp on about the terrorists still have human rights, well im sorry but after they planned to put innocent peoples lives at risk, they forfeit their right to a cup of coffee and a phone call.

Its all good and well saying they are still a human being, but im sure that if they were withholding the location of your son or daughter who was being held at gun point your view on torture would soon change!

[peterms]

Are we not torturing people now to prevent future attacks?

The point I'm making is that whatever the people who are doing the torturing may think or claim, the objective outcome is likely to be to facilitate recruitment of more terrorists.

I dont know what some people expect? Maybe Obama should invite Bin Laden to tea so they can agree to disagree, brush it all under the carpet and let it all just blow over?

Are you aware of how long-standing conflicts in places like Ireland and South Africa were resolved?

So torturing a couple of 'brothers' gives them the right to murder 3000 innocent human beings?

I'm not surely if you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said, but I have said nothing of the sort, and don't believe it. I'm talking about the effect of our actions on what other people are likely to do in the real world. Whether they have the "right" to do that is a completely different issue.

You walking a very very shakey line of almost saying that it is 'our' fault that 9/11 happened because we started the who affair?

It would be helpful if we could consider the things which led up to 9/11. Do you think there was no relevant history, no contributing factors, it just happened for no reason whatever? Don't you think that understanding the cause of events is helpful in trying to prevent recurrence?

You also talk about maybe they didnt realise the long term effects and act with good motives, i think flying a couple of jets into some skyscrapers is pretty self explanitory.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that torture is a form of punishment here, or if you have understood that my comment about acting with good motives referred to (some of) the torturers, or in fact what point you are making.

[peterms]

so they can agree to disagree, brush it all under the carpet and let it all just blow over?

it's what they did with Mandela and Adams :-)

Exactly, and it proved just a little bit more successful than the previous policy of torture and repression.