Torture...is it necessary?

[Jon]

Im hurt Jon, wouldnt you miss me? :cry:

In some threads, Yes.

In the more "political" threads, No.

There you go, a bit of diplomacy. :winkold:

[wiggyrichard]

Im hurt Jon, wouldnt you miss me? :cry:

In some threads, Yes.

In the more "political" threads, No.

There you go, a bit of diplomacy. :winkold:

I can live with that 8)

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I think we are all getting carried away with this.

It's basically what you or others will do to protect what you hold dear.

Now, I accept I am at the far end of the scale but i also accept some people are right at the other end of the scale that's just the way it is. What I value is totally different to others, I don't care how I would feel afterwards for example and others have thought about this and taken this into account.

There is no need to argue about it, it's more of a "this is where i am on the subject" my original question I realise was a bit Hollywood regarding guns at family members head etc but I thought that would focus minds on the answer.

Hypothetical questions are designed (I think) to get the odd mad response or talking point (That's why we ask them I suppose). If you were to ask me what would I do if someone kicked my dog a few times on the beach a lot of people would not like my answer to that either but that's what forums and stuff is all about ?

[peterms]

Oh no! I find myself keeping company with David Cameron!

That's a bit worrying.

David Cameron challenges George Bush claim over waterboarding

British PM fails to endorse claim by former US president that America's use of waterboarding prevented terrorist attacks in UK

David Cameron has challenged George Bush's claim that the use of waterboarding saved British lives.

The prime minister said torture was wrong and any information received as a result was "very likely to be unreliable".

Cameron outlined his views following claims made in the former US president's new book, Decision Point, published this week, which said that the use of the technique – a kind of simulated drowning – on terrorism suspects "helped break up plots" to attack Heathrow and Canary Wharf.

Bush vigorously defended the use of waterboarding and denied it amounted to torture, as critics and some allies claim. The British government has long regarded it as a form of torture.

The former president's claim that British lives had been saved as a result was dismissed earlier this week by British officials, who said there was no evidence to support it.

Today, Cameron spoke out against the use of torture as both immoral and counterproductive.

Asked today whether US use of waterboarding had prevented attacks in the UK, the prime minister said: "Look, I think torture is wrong and I think we ought to be very clear about that. And I think we should also be clear that if actually you're getting information from torture, it's very likely to be unreliable information."

Cameron suggested that the use of torture – and the incarceration of suspects in the Guantánamo Bay detention centre without trial – could be counterproductive, by encouraging support for terrorists.

Speaking during a round of broadcast interviews in Seoul, Cameron said: "I think there is both a moral reason for being opposed to torture – and Britain doesn't sanction torture – but secondly I think there's also an effectiveness thing about what he said.

"Thirdly, I would say if you look at the effect of Guantánamo Bay and other things like that, long term that has actually helped to radicalise people and make our country and our world less safe, so I don't agree."

[JulieB]

If my kids were in danger it would tear me to pieces and I'd gladly give my life in exchange....

but I would NEVER condone the barbaric torturing of another human being to possibly extract information that may lead to their release.

If you have principles then you stick to them no matter.

I feel sorry for your children.

Mine are just about adults anyhow so can speak for themselves. But I'll guarantee if you asked them would their Mum ever condone the torture of another human being in an attempt to protect them, then they'd say "No way"

However if you asked them would Mum have ever taken action to protect us when we were little eg if someone broke in the house & tried to snatch them, then yes she would have, even if it meant bashing him or her over the head with something.

Torturing someone in an attempt that they may have information that may well be unreliable is unacceptable.

So you wouldnt torture someone to protect them, yet you would 'bash them over the head' and potentially kill them? :?

So am i a bad or a good parent for doing anything (torture) and everything in my power to ensure my son is safe?

If someone directly attacked me or my kids then I or a member of my family could act to protect ourselves in self defence, that is not wrong in my eyes. I am not advocating arming myself with a gun or anything you understand, I'm merely stating even as a Christian we are supposed to "be peacable as far as possible with all men".

However acting to protect ourselves or a loved one when under direct threat to me is a different kettle of fish to imprisoning someone and torturing them, in a hope that they might spill the correct beans on someone else's misdemeanour.

Perhaps you disagree with that viewpoint..OK that's your choice, but I certainly see a difference between the two scenarios

[jonno_2004]

If my kids were in danger it would tear me to pieces and I'd gladly give my life in exchange....

but I would NEVER condone the barbaric torturing of another human being to possibly extract information that may lead to their release.

If you have principles then you stick to them no matter.

I feel sorry for your children.

Mine are just about adults anyhow so can speak for themselves. But I'll guarantee if you asked them would their Mum ever condone the torture of another human being in an attempt to protect them, then they'd say "No way"

However if you asked them would Mum have ever taken action to protect us when we were little eg if someone broke in the house & tried to snatch them, then yes she would have, even if it meant bashing him or her over the head with something.

Torturing someone in an attempt that they may have information that may well be unreliable is unacceptable in my eyes.

Maybe what I said was harsh so I take it back in the circumstance you've just detailed. I was commenting more on the exact hypothetical situation that was described in that by torturing the 'baddy' you would indeed get the reliable information to save your kids.

[wiggyrichard]

But if they are threatening and holding your loved one prisoner, your tellig me thatyou wouldnt do everything in your power to get them back? Even if that meant killing or torturing one of the captors?

[tonyh29]

But if they are threatening and holding your loved one prisoner, your tellig me thatyou wouldnt do everything in your power to get them back? Even if that meant killing or torturing one of the captors?

your kinda wasting your time now I think

They have adopted a stance and short of kidnapping their children and burying them underground I don't think they truth is ever going to out

One is reminded of the Frog carrying the scorpion over the river .... Instinct will kick in of that you can be sure

[JulieB]

Maybe what I said was harsh so I take it back in the circumstance you've just detailed.

You don't have to at all. I didn't take any offence over it honestly.

I'm immune to VT insults after the "religious threads"...I've just learned to duck and laugh!!

[mjmooney]

The trouble with these questions is that they are like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" routine - there is no sensible answer.

And they are used - by both "sides" - on quite reasonable people to get them to support utterly unreasonable activities.

The only rational answer is that everyone should act as appropriate under different circumstances - but we should examine all statements as to what the current circumstances actually are very carefully indeed.

There is no direct line of logic that states "I would do anything in my power to protect my family.... therefore I support state torture - whenever and wherever the state deems necessary, on my behalf".

It's a simple non sequitur - but deceptively persuasive.

[wiggyrichard]

double post

[wiggyrichard]

One is reminded of the Frog carrying the scorpion over the river .... Instinct will kick in of that you can be sure

Yep i know what you mean mate, the whole goody two shoes morals thing doesnt wash with me and most of all doesnt impress.

[wiggyrichard]

Maybe what I said was harsh so I take it back in the circumstance you've just detailed.

You don't have to at all. I didn't take any offence over it honestly.

I'm immune to VT insults after the "religious threads"...I've just learned to duck and laugh!!

Could you just answer my question Julie, a yes or no will be fine.

But if they are threatening and holding your loved one prisoner, your tellig me thatyou wouldnt do everything in your power to get them back? Even if that meant killing or torturing one of the captors?

[mjmooney]

Could you just answer my question Julie, a yes or no will be fine.

Just what I was getting at up the page ("Have you stopped beating your wife?").

The minute you answer that question you are effectively blocking off the real debate about what is going on here.

"Do you want Britain to be ruled by Islamic courts? No? Well you should obviously support the EDL then".

[JulieB]

Could you just answer my question Julie, a yes or no will be fine.

I think Mike's answered it for me...

No one else has been pinned down to a Yes or No answer have they?

[mjmooney]

Julie and I on same side shocker!

[tonyh29]

The minute you answer that question you are effectively blocking off the real debate about what is going on here.

Tonyh29 likes this ...

the whole goody two shoes morals thing doesnt wash with me and most of all doesnt impress

I don't have an issue with anybody's morals side of it , I live by a code of morals myself , those morals may of course be different to the next persons morals though .. I guess it's the "no exceptions " bit we are finding hard to grasp , my argument is that it's easy to say what we would do , but thankfully most of us never have to find out exactly what we WOULD do .. Bush believes his actions were right , the fact he prevented those attacks backs up his view in his opinion .. the fact that some other attacks were carried out probably proves the case that he was wrong in someone else's opinion

[JulieB]

Julie and I on same side shocker!

Along with Chindie and Snowy to boot!!! :shock:

[peterms]

Yep i know what you mean mate, the whole goody two shoes morals thing doesnt wash with me and most of all doesnt impress.

You appear not to be addressing the substance of the arguments put forward, but simply characterising those who disagree with you as "moralists".