27 Jul 05
I mean the one in London.
Given that he may know where his fellow suicide mate wannabes are holed up, would it be OK to force him to give us their locations.?
After all he is evil and his 'mates' have already shown they are prepared to kill. Torturing him ASAP may well save hundreds of innocent lives if we can stop the other 3 lunatics.
So cummon, surely it's OK for the police to tweak his nipples a little bit?
Or maybe just give him a chinese burn?
Or should we just attach electrodes to his testicles and ramp up the current?
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeIn general, no, it ain't ok. Torture should not be employed by a society that claims to value human rights.
I mean the one in London.
Given that he may know where his fellow suicide mate wannabes are holed up, would it be OK to force him to give us their locations.?
After all he is evil and his 'mates' have already shown they are prepared to kill. Torturing him ASAP may well save hundreds of innocent lives if we can stop the other 3 lunatics.
So cummon, ...[text shortened]... m a chinese burn?
Or should we just attach electrodes to his testicles and ramp up the current?
Doesn't mean they won't go do it behind closed doors anyway.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeDepends on who you ask and how they define "torture". The Bush administration claims we are at war against terrorists. If so, then the rules of conduct agreed to at the Geneva convention should apply to all captured prisoners of this war.
I mean the one in London.
Given that he may know where his fellow suicide mate wannabes are holed up, would it be OK to force him to give us their locations.?
After all he is evil and his 'mates' have already shown they are prepared to kill. Torturing him ASAP may well save hundreds of innocent lives if we can stop the other 3 lunatics.
So cummon, ...[text shortened]... m a chinese burn?
Or should we just attach electrodes to his testicles and ramp up the current?
But since this war started there's been a lot of "hair splitting" in regards to who exactly is a POW and who is not. Seems simple to me. If we're at war and we capture anyone that is fighting against us then they become a POW. So torture cannot be used. Torture should never be used, but we all know that's not how things work.
Of course if you redefine "torture" you can wiggle around some of those pesky annoyances - like human rights.
To answer your question directly - No, we should never use torture for any reason.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgee
I mean the one in London.
Given that he may know where his fellow suicide mate wannabes are holed up, would it be OK to force him to give us their locations.?
After all he is evil and his 'mates' have already shown they are prepared to kill. Torturing him ASAP may well save hundreds of innocent lives if we can stop the other 3 lunatics.
So cummon, ...[text shortened]... m a chinese burn?
Or should we just attach electrodes to his testicles and ramp up the current?
Torture is not morally acceptable.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by wibOK - so what about "coercion"?
Depends on who you ask and how they define "torture". The Bush administration claims we are at war against terrorists. If so, then the rules of conduct agreed to at the Geneva convention should apply to all captured prisoners of this war.
But since this war started there's been a lot of "hair splitting" in regards to who exactly is a POW and who is no ...[text shortened]... rights.
To answer your question directly - No, we should never use torture for any reason.
Suppose he is interviewed solidly for days on end, and deprived on any sleep until he starts to give answers - would this be OK?
Think of all the lives he could save by spilling the beans.
Don' forget, this guy is a fanatic and is likely to clam up totally to protect what he sees as the greater good (death to the infidels!).
27 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeWell, then it would depend on what you define as torture. At what point does coercion become torture?
OK - so what about "coercion"?
Suppose he is interviewed solidly for days on end, and deprived on any sleep until he starts to give answers - would this be OK?
Think of all the lives he could save by spilling the beans.
Don' fo ...[text shortened]... protect what he sees as the greater good (death to the infidels!).
I would consider being forced to watch Coronation Street as torture.
28 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeWaz up Howard! How ya been? I meant to ask you earlier in the post.
OK - so what about "coercion"?
Suppose he is interviewed solidly for days on end, and deprived on any sleep until he starts to give answers - would this be OK?
Think of all the lives he could save by spilling the beans.
Don' forget, this guy is a fanatic and is likely to clam up totally to protect what he sees as the greater good (death to the infidels!).
As for the torture question - I agree with Lausey - it's all about the definition. The torturers and the victim may have very different definitions. As we've seen time and time again throughout history the victors/captors make the rules and write the history books.
Right now the US is splitting hairs and redefining the meaning of the word torture. What you're describing above most people would call "soft interrogation techniques".
28 Jul 05
Originally posted by wibGood thanks mate, how's yerself?
Waz up Howard! How ya been? I meant to ask you earlier in the post.
As for the torture question - I agree with Lausey - it's all about the definition. The torturers and the victim may have very different definitions. As we've seen time and time again throughout history the victors/captors make the rules and write the history books.
Right now the U ...[text shortened]... rture. What you're describing above most people would call "soft interrogation techniques".
I have been feeling a bit jaded at chess recently, but have been concentrating more on posting in the forums. It goes like that sometimes!
I think this is an interesting topic here though. Basically, how much are we supposed to respect this fanatic's rights when by ignoring his rights, we will probably save innocent lives and prevent much suffering.
It comes down to Liberty of the individual vs. Happiness of the masses.
In this guy's case though, it almost feels like we can treat him worse than an animal. After all, he has no respect for his own life, so why should we?
28 Jul 05
Originally posted by wibMy wife reagrds splitting hairs (especially at the ends) as form of natural torture.
Waz up Howard! How ya been? I meant to ask you earlier in the post.
As for the torture question - I agree with Lausey - it's all about the definition. The torturers and the victim may have very different definitions. As we've seen time and time again throughout history the victors/captors make the rules and write the history books.
Right now the U ...[text shortened]... rture. What you're describing above most people would call "soft interrogation techniques".
28 Jul 05
I think torturing anyone is morally unaceptable.
I also, in a practical sense, don't think it would be very productive. The guy is unlikely to deny his murderous intentions. He's also very unlikely to know where his chums have gone - they expected to die last Thursday, they're unlikely to had made contingency plans, they've probably just went their separate ways.
He might know who the 'mastermind' behind all this is, but they'll be well gone by now.
The only practical reason for torturing him is to make a few coppers feel good.
In fact, if we treat him properly, and are seen to do so, it might just convince a few people that the West isn't all bad, and maybe they shouldn't go down the same road.
