| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 61781 | 2005-09-16 08:17:00 | Torture Is Valid? | Winston001 (3612) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 388699 | 2005-09-16 08:17:00 | One of the latest topics in international law is the question of using torture to obtain information from suspects. We tend to quail in the face of such a suggestion but it is an interesting argument. Imagine that there is a terrorist in the middle of Christchurch who has planted a nuclear bomb set to go off within hours. You capture him and are faced with a moral dilemma. Do you torture him to get the information that allows you to defuse the bomb, thereby saving the lives of thousands of people? From there, it is a simple proposition to argue that, since you would torture in that case, it can’t be true that you would never torture. And once we’ve established that there is some point at which a trade-off between “lives saved” and “techniques used” can occur, the debate shifts to how serious the consequences have to be to justify torture. The hypothetical has wedged us into the position of admitting that torture is sometimes a legitimate tactic. Two Australian professors argue that terrorism is such a threat to innocent people that torture may be justified. For more here - www.theage.com.au |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 388700 | 2005-09-16 08:40:00 | In the examble you gave i think torture is justified but there has to be limits to it use . If you start torturing people just because they're your enermy then you have to accept that your enermy will do the same to your people . Also, If your tourturing people/ suspects just for information about military movements etc and they are actually just your regular joe blog citizen then when they get released they'll probably have enough hatedred instilled in them from their experience that they'll become your enermy . Kind of like what happens in iraq . P/s, you need to be registered to view that link Winston . |
lazydog (148) | ||
| 388701 | 2005-09-16 09:10:00 | You raise interesting topics Winston :) Torture has always been with us and is part of human behaviour. I put 'history of torture' into Google, and there are umpteen web pages and books about torture, in fact one could say there is an obsession with torture: www.google.co.nz |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 388702 | 2005-09-16 09:55:00 | Valid... Personally if it were me with the terrorist, I would be kicking his a$$ and asking why he didn't stick it under the Beehive :p |
Myth (110) | ||
| 388703 | 2005-09-16 09:55:00 | Sorry about that Lazydog. I had a direct link somehow but you are right. Anyway you get the general idea. There is a really strong argument raging now as to whether "torture" is a morally defensible practise in the West. No-one is arguing that the police should torture a burglar to find out his accomplices names. Currently what happens is that the US removes terrorist suspects from a Western country to Jordan/Saudi/Egypt where the officials aren't quite so squeamish about their methods. So it is argued that we should be honest and approve active interrogation in our own jurisdictions. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 388704 | 2005-09-16 10:17:00 | Lots of things are coomon and part of huan history, Or human nature. None of that makes it right. | pctek (84) | ||
| 388705 | 2005-09-16 10:19:00 | Torturing terrorist suspects is definitely justified if it is going to save innocent lives. | bob05 (8721) | ||
| 388706 | 2005-09-16 10:32:00 | Torturing terrorist suspects is definitely justified if it is going to save innocent lives. But what if the "suspect" turned out to be someone like Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazillian shot dead by British police ? In the long run, the use of torture is counter productive, leading to an evil slippery slope, history has shown that: www.globalresearch.ca I can't help but feel the advocates of torture include mainly those whose political leanings are to the right or far right. Would the current discussion on torture as described by Winston, and the current use of torture by the US or their proxies have arisen if the Democrats had been elected? |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 388707 | 2005-09-16 10:46:00 | But what if the "suspect" turned out to be someone like Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazillian shot dead by British police ? That isn't a very good example because he ran from the police . I think the issue Winston001 is talking about is more like a guy who is being interrogate by the FBI or secret service etc . Also, torture doesn't mean killing necessarily . It just means get the information out of the person . Sure you may get the wrong guy 0 . 0001% of the time, but I think public safety comes first . I fully agree that torture is a terrible thing and should only be used in very rare and extreme circumstances, but I would be pretty annoyed if I was severely injured or killed in a situation that could have been prevented . :) |
bob05 (8721) | ||
| 388708 | 2005-09-16 10:53:00 | What has always surprised me is the reluctance to use sodium pentathol or one of the even better truth drugs to get the answers humanely . Personally I can't see what would be wrong with using that as a violence-free solution, and before the bleeding hearts start, why would the trauma-free use of a drug to save the lives of many be less important that the "rights" of one individual? Administered in the right fashion, the subject wouldn't even know they had been interrogated . Who needs torture?? I underwent a rather unpleasant medical procedure a few years ago that required me to be awake and cooperative . It was done using just such a drug and I have no recollection of anything after taking it . The surgeon told me later that with some patients they can't stop them talking and they get told quite amazing secrets by the most unlikely individuals . Cheers Billy 8-{) :eek: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||