The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Torture is bad - killing innocent people is worse > Comments

Torture is bad - killing innocent people is worse : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 28/12/2007

It’s better to be a reluctant torturer than a murderous bystander.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Bagaric has made a much better job of explaining his attitude to torture than he did in a previous attempt some time ago.

This time he makes sense, and only a warped member of the loony left could argue against his proposition. This, of course, means about 80% of the drips on OLO.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 28 December 2007 11:07:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"courts across the world have routinely thrown out confessions which are demonstrably true (because they are corroborated by objective evidence) on the basis that they were only made because the criminals were beaten up."

And courts across the world have routinely jailed and executed people who gave false confessions under torture.

Recent subjects who have been whisked off the streets for some "compassionate torture" by US subsidiaries have included a dozen Pakistani men who committed the heinous crime of wearing a particular brand of cheap generic watch which contains a solinoid once found in a nailbomb. No doubt the subsequent electrocution of their genitals and release without charge saved hundreds of lives and won the hearts and minds of many moderate Pakistanis.

Compared to the number of deaths caused by accident and misadventure, the impact of terrorism is minute. We would be better of torturing kitchen staff to reveal details of inadequate food safety practices which lead to botulism.

Torture is not urgent and necessary, it is simply being used a lazy alternative to rigorous police work and evidence-gathering. The war on terror has been characterised by gross abuses of authority and routine peddling of falsehoods, and now those same peddlars want carte blanch permission to produce tailored confessions to whatever crime is politically expedient.

Viva free speech, but this article is simply loathsome.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 28 December 2007 11:27:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK. So when I find myself being tortured until I incriminate somebody, I'll know that Mirko Bagaric is fair game, provided of course that I have done my homework on him and cooked up a plausible story.

The witch hunts were stopped because enough of the victims on the racks had the presence of mind to accuse a hunter of being a witch. The end justified the means -- eh, Dr Bagaric?
Posted by grputland, Friday, 28 December 2007 11:39:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have been over this ground with Mirko before. A very good counter-argument was run in this article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3886

The cost-benefit calculus of utilitarianism may be a useful way to resolve many everyday issues. But I agree with Manderson: “Ethics means that there are some things you do not do even though it would advantage you (or the whole society) to do them.” Torture is definitely one of those things.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 December 2007 2:23:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Sancho, grputland and Rhian.

I find Mirko's obsessive compulsion to advocate torture a little disturbing.

<<First, it’s claimed that torture doesn’t elicit reliable information.>>

I'd be interested to see the statistics of obtaining life saving information versus obtaining false information, which Mirko has conveniently(?) skimmed over. But considering how much torture is kept “under wraps” (especially when unsuccessful), it's unlikely we'd ever have any accurate statistics.

To stoop to the sub-human level of accepting torture, there would have to be an immeasurably small portion of cases in which torture didn't provide results. Anyone who argues otherwise is either simple-minded or completely deranged.

<<The second common objection to torture is that we can never be sure that the suspect has the relevant information. If that’s the case, simply don’t torture...>>

Wow! Just like that, hey? How do we know when we're sure enough? To some, the idea of “sure enough” can differ greatly.

<<It is also contended that life saving torture will lead down the slippery slope of other cruel practices. This is an intellectually defeatist argument...>>

But Mirko, you still didn't explain why accepting torture wouldn't lead to other cruel practices (which human nature, mixed with the corruption of power, suggests it will). Or if it did, why it would be worth the risk of condemning future generations to a society so deplorable, our descendants wouldn't be willing to risk death in exchange for a more civilised society.

Your argument here is simplistic and short-sighted.

<<A further common argument against torture is that it is inhumane and undemocratic. These are not reasons - just displays of venting. There could be nothing more inhumane than doing nothing as innocent people are being tortured to death.>>

For this point to be completely valid, one would also have to conclusively demonstrate the validity of the first three points - which Mirko has not yet done.

The whole torture debate isn't as simple as Mirko has put it. And if I've made it too complex, then perhaps that's an indication that it may not be worth the risk in the long run.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 28 December 2007 2:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko Bagaric as usually mounts an objective and serious argument, this time in regards to torture. But the seriousness of his contention will not, and cannot, be accepted by the faint-hearted and by nipple-fed intellectuals a la Julian Burnside.

http://kotzabasis5.wordpress.com
Posted by Themistocles, Friday, 28 December 2007 6:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko places the blame on the wrong people. Say Mr Evil locks up 100 people, and takes you aside and says "Give me your life, and i'll free the 100 people, if you don't I'll kill them". Say you choose to keep your own life, and the 100 people subsequently get murdered, THIS IS NOT YOUR FAULT. (whether or not you should have given up your life is irrelevant). The blame here falls upon Mr Evil for murder, not you. Mirko's flawed moral compass would appear to place the blame on the person who chose not to give up their life, which is idiotic. The fact that society chooses NOT to commit immoral acts to prevent other immoral acts is not itself an act of "permitting murder of innocent people".

Torture is not justified, in the same way that murder is never justified except in self-defense. Torture is not the sort of thing where you could reasonably KNOW that it is self-defense, and whether he knows it or not, he is opening a whole new can of worms as far as government involvement with violence is concerned. There is no way to 'check' what the government is doing when its all 'top secret', there is no way to restrain the government when you don't even know what what they are doing!

Also, his analogy does not work. Organ and bone marrow donors VOLUNTARILY choose to do this. Nobody voluntarily permits torture against their own person.

My message is clear: Do not give this idea acceptance, this idea should be rejected by any rational person because it is so obviously immoral, flawed and dangerous.

www.democracysucks.wordpress.com
Posted by volition, Friday, 28 December 2007 8:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i just love getting these lessons in morality from Torture Man.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 28 December 2007 8:59:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am I still in the 21at century? This has to be the sickest, most barbaric, medieval article I have ever read.
Apart from that most basic law "innocent until proven guilty" there is the simple question of who is going to commit this act.
People who torture others are CRIMINALS. It is an illegal act of violence. Asking someone else to commit an illegal act on your behalf is also illegal.
If you believe in any form of equality, you must accept that you cannot ask other people to commit acts on your behalf and maintain a clear conscience.
Are you personally prepared to torture another human being, Mr Bargaric? If you are, I strongly suggest you have yourself committed.
You are a dangerously sick individual.
grim@thecomensality.com
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 29 December 2007 7:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have hypothesized for a number of years now that a large segment of the population i.e. the secular progressives, have had their survival instincts bred out of them. They smugly live out their lives as products of a secure, plasticized, urbanized, sloganized, digitized, pop-cultural worshiping utopia.

Rhian has now provided some proof that I may be correct, when stating -- Ethics means that there are some things you do not do even though it would advantage you (or the whole society) to do them.” Torture is definitely one of those things.

When I studied ethics, Situational Ethics was centre stage. The Rhians of the world seem to want to blend and stir Traditional Ethics of pure right and wrong with their normally favoured Situational Ethics.

Unlike totalitarian regimes throughout the world; coercions (no permanent damage) are NOT sanctioned in police stations throughout our democratic world.

The fact that useful information (saved lives) has been derived from mass murdering xenophobes is proof that Rhian's ethical position is flawed, at least from a secular progressive point of view or perhaps even her own philosophical paradigm.

Additionally, I fail to see how the ethics of the interrogator is so easily deemed to be objectionable. Every OLO writer has not been required to exercise their ethical position on this matter. The interrogators have and I think we should be more magnanimous in recognizing the legitimacy of their action as opposed to our theoretical positions. I will trust those who have the responsibility to ensure our safety to decide. I wouldn't want the Rhian's of the world guarding anything of value, after all they may be required to actually do something instead of theorizing.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 29 December 2007 2:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Cowboy Joe!

Those damn secular progressives, with their "democracy" and "due process" and "habeus corpus". Why can't they just realise that it will be a better world for everyone if we just submit to fear - justified or not - and do exactly what we are told by paternalistic, religious politicians.

Oh, that's right: because it would turn the west into a clone of the middle east.
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 29 December 2007 3:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does France and Londonistan fit into your vision of the future?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 29 December 2007 3:38:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
damn those secular progressives! if only the religious regressives were in control. oh, what paradise on earth we would have!
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 29 December 2007 4:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Cowboy Joe. The secular progressives wouldn't be so quick to condemn torture if they had God in their hearts now, would they?

<<Additionally, I fail to see how the ethics of the interrogator is so easily deemed to be objectionable.>>

I agree - in the short-term. Initially, I believe the interrogators would be the biggest victims - providing the torture victim is actually withholding life saving information. But this statement ignores the fact that we could be opening doors that we may not be able to close.

<<I will trust those who have the responsibility to ensure our safety to decide.>>

...said the Nazi soldier to the “unpatriotic” German.

No, I'm not suggesting that you're a Nazi, Mr Joe. But as touching as your trust is, I thought that the religious regressives (as Bushbasher has so eloquently put it) had the good sense not to put too much faith in man - being the fallible creature that he is. Or would they be guided by God as Bush is?

<<I wouldn't want the Rhian's of the world guarding anything of value, after all they may be required to actually do something instead of theorizing.>>

If it hadn't been for the “theorizing” of those secular progressives, we'd still be burning people as heretics and torturing them with sadistic devices, demanding that they accept God and recant. Heck, the universe would still revolve around a flat Earth.

<<How does France and Londonistan fit into your vision of the future?>>

“Londonistan”, as bad as it would be, wouldn't be all that much worse than what we'd potentially create by our own direct means if we were so quick to openly condone torture.

How about, as Sancho has suggested, we try a bit more “rigorous police work and evidence-gathering” before we officially adopt and accept torture.

Sitting up and taking notice of the growing signs of the 9/11 attacks would have been a good start, rather than using 200 odd FBI agents to investigate the sexual indiscretions of a President.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 29 December 2007 10:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You will never be invited to join ASIO Mirko.If the torture of a few, will save hundreds of lives who are honest faithful productive members of our society,then so be it.The individual is never greater than the whole,since the power of the individual always comes from the civilisation generated by that society.

Moral equivocation and handringing means nothing in the face of oblivion.It is do,or die.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 29 December 2007 11:45:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...first, it’s claimed that torture doesn’t elicit reliable information. This is factually wrong. There are countless counter-examples. Israeli authorities claim to have foiled 90 terrorist attacks by using coercive interrogation."

Well they would have to say that, wouldn't they. Even if it wasn't true.

I don't know where the author got that information but it's also a fact that non-coercive FBI techniques have historically proven to be consistently more reliable than the alternative CIA torture methods.

I don't know the success rate for the methods used in other "enlightened" regimes in the Middle East or South America.

This is similar thinking to pre-emptive strikes and execution without trial.

At what point do we stop fighting the "bad guys" and become the "bad guys" ourselves?

I would have doubts about living in - and supporting - a society that sanctioned torture as a political, military or social tool.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:19:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

<<If the torture of a few, will save hundreds of lives who are honest faithful productive members of our society,then so be it.>>

Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. But since 9/11 we have seen the American government and the Australian and British governments (to a much lesser extent) take advantage of a tragic situation for their own personal gain by stripping citizens of their basic freedoms in order to “protect” us.

This abuse of power demonstrates how far they're willing to go to curtail those "pesky" civil liberites. I've heard Americans say many times (in regards to their bill of rights and basic civil liberties) that American's can't afford another 9/11.

Considering how much the Western world has already begun to slide down the “slippery slope” that Mirko wants to ignore, imagine where we'd be with a few more 9/11's – which will still never be entirely avoidable no matter how much “protection” we were provided with.

<<The individual is never greater than the whole,since the power of the individual always comes from the civilisation generated by that society.>>

This line could be used to argue an anti-torture point-of-view as well, simply by interpreting it as: “The individual's right to safety is never greater than the state of the society as a whole, since the power of the individual always comes from the civilisation generated by that society”.

Again, like I said in my last post, what kind of society would we be potentially creating for ourselves if we were so quickly willing to condone torture?

Despite what it may seem, I'm not saying that I wouldn't be relieved if my own life had been saved by torture techniques. But to so quickly advocate torture is just plain irresponsible, and reeks of nothing but anger and a desire to inflict pain those whom we despise.

Arjay (and Cowboy Joe for that matter), did you even read the points that others have already made on this thread? If so, then I find it hard to believe that you would have made such simplistic statements.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 30 December 2007 1:03:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can see where this is all leading....

Let's cut to the chase and construct an altar. Then cut the living hearts out of all those who pose a threat to the greater good, as defined by the High Priests of Western Capitalism.

The pressures of overpopulation and diminishing resources are slowly having their way over us just as surely as they did over the Aztecs in their day. What seems to us to be utter barbarism had grown from the same pragmatism. It made perfectly good sense to their elite, who upheld the maintenance of an outmoded belief system over the very souls that it was originally meant to serve.

Thus the tribe loses it's head and it's heart....

Huitzilopochtli, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash and Tenochtitlán, South America)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 30 December 2007 8:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles/AJ Phillips/Grputland/ Sancho,

Most of the opponents of torture seems to be taking the salad approach to the debate i) restrictions on civil liberties ii) wrong govt foreign policy iii) witch hunts iv) Aztecs , all get served up in a mixed dish.

All of the above are no doubt important considerations - but for the sake clarity I’d like to hear two central questions answered – in isolation:
( forgetting for the moment whether it does on does not achieve valid results –or who/whom may misuse it)
1)If torture can save lives, would you countenance it?
Can the opposition side give a straight yes or no answer? And,

2) What constitutes torture? (is there a definition we all would agree on?)
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 30 December 2007 10:03:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko's article would be a hilarious example of relativist reasoning that some always accuse the 'loony left' and those wicked 'secularists' of, if the subject were not so serious.

It is hilarious to read a condemnation of 'the slippery slope' argument generally so loved by the conservative right to dismiss arguments contrary to their black and white world view.

Thankfully the majority of posters, and I'm sure they would represent the entire political spectrum, agree that torture has no place. It is no less evil if done by a 'good' guy with supposedly 'good' intentions, then if done by a 'bad' guy.

Sancho, your first post made me laugh out loud. Indeed, lets start with torturing food manufacturers, car manufacturers, casino owners alcohol producers, cigarette manufacturers and especially their advertisers to get to the truth that it is all about making a buck regardless of the cost to any individual or any society.

There can not be any ground on which torture is condoned acceptable to the idea that all human beings are rational thinking beings as opposed to animals where survival of the fittest is the only criteria. Surely it is not loony left to think that humans have a capacity for morality or human civilization?
Posted by yvonne, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough.

1) Yes, I would countenance torture if it was done in near-certainty that it would yield information which prevented violence and death. Hell, I'd tolerate it if even half of the torture sessions carried out produced such information.

But what's happening is the reverse. The example I gave above actually happened. At other times, the spooks have rounded up every Mohammed, Muhummed, and Mahamed in a suburb and tortured them after an anonymous tip-off that someone with that name was building a bomb.

If you pull someone off the street, beat and waterboard them, then let them go without charge, all you've done is created another terrorist sympathiser. Aside from lightening the burden of investigation, rounding people up en masse for harsh interrogation makes the problem look larger than it is, which plays very well politically for those who profit from the war on terror.

The hawks complain that we appear weak for treating the evil bad guys with kid gloves, but the majority of people being tortured in our name are entirely innocent. In thirty years it might be China doing the extraordinary rendition. Would you back Mirko's argument if it was a member of your family being deported to a Syrian concentration camp for criticising the Communist Party?

2) I agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross, that torture is the "intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain" for a specific purpose. The manner and duration is irrelevant.

Waterboarding, in particular, is being touted as a form of torture with no lasting effects. But once you've broken someone's mind, you can't just release them and expect them to go back to being a balanced and healthy person.

Knowing that a foreign government can, at any time, kidnap and subject you to torture and imprisonment is far, far, more menacing and frightening than the slim possibility that a terrorist may detonate a homemade bomb somewhere in the country.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 30 December 2007 1:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pro-torture camp has two elephants in the living room:

(1) Where torture is unconditionally banned, investigators already use torture (or outsource it) in a much wider range of circumstances than the pro-torture camp would allow. Thus the pro-torture arguments, IF they were valid, would not call for exceptions to the ban on torture, but rather would call for tighter enforcement of the existing ban.

(2) In view of (1), IF a particular illegal act of torture had actually saved lives, the torturer would expect to benefit from an executive discretion not to prosecute -- and, if prosecuted, would expect to benefit from the jury's power to acquit in the teeth of both the law and the facts.

In short, the circumstances in which interrogators get away with torture are already too wide even by the standards of the pro-torture camp, and any new legal loopholes would make them even wider.

Horus asks me (among others): "If torture can save lives, would you countenance it? Can the opposition side give a straight yes or no answer?"

If in fact torture cannot save lives, then he might as well ask "If 2+2=5, would you condone torture?" Should I then answer "Yes, but 2+2 doesn't make 5," or "No, because 2+2 doesn't make 5"? The demand for a "yes or no" answer is an attempt to suppress the more important "but" or "because", so that Horus can then substitute his own "but" or "because" and attack me for holding a position that I do not hold.

"Londonistan" is a red herring because it's a function of immigration policy, not torture policy. "Londonistan" is also a consequence of colonizing an foreign country more populous than one's own. What goes around comes around.

I admit that there is inconsistency on both sides of this debate; but the inconsistency is wider and deeper than any single issue.

There are two competing approaches to ethics: the CONSEQUENCE-BASED approach, which I shall call CONSEQUENTIALISM (which is what Cowboy Joe calls Situational Ethics, and part of what Rhian calls utilitarianism), and the ACT-BASED approach, usually called DEONTOLOGY.

CONTINUED...
Posted by grputland, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...CONTINUED

(The term "deontology" obfuscates because it is derived from the verb meaning "to be right" but fails to specify the distinguishing criterion of rightness. The term "situational ethics" is similarly unhelpful because deontologists preach their own ACT-BASED "situational ethics". The term "utilitarianism" is too specific because it considers only TOTAL utility, whereas some consequentialists also concern themselves with DISTRIBUTION of utility. But anyway...)

Hypocrisy reigns on both sides.

The self-appointed champion of deontology is the Church of Rome, which uses deontological arguments to "prove" that direct contraception is forbidden even when the only alternative is total abstinence, and that direct abortion is forbidden even if both the mother and the foetus will die otherwise. Meanwhile the same church takes consequentialist positions on war and organ transplants. And of course it now takes a deontological position against torture, but notoriously took a different position in earlier centuries.

Secularists and religious progressives, who reject the deontological approach to contraception and abortion (even if they happen to be pro-life in all circumstances and hence anti-abortion in ALMOST all circumstances), usually fall into deontological arguments on torture, and sometimes also on war. And right-wingers who defend torture on "consequentialist" grounds take a deontological position on numerous other issues (namely that the stick must be preferred to the carrot regardless of the consequences).

The Church of Rome accuses consequentialists of being unable to rule out any course of action, however terrible it may be. But that's a lie. One can be a consequentialist while maintaining on independent grounds that there are certain actions which, by their very nature, can never pass the consequentialist test.

In particular, you can be a consequentialist while maintaining that torture can never pass the test. But if that is your position, you need to have the courage to say so -- and not to have a one-night stand with deontology just because it happens to support your preferred conclusion on one issue.

And by the same logic you can say: If you crack under torture, do so by incriminating someone who is in some way responsible for the torture.
Posted by grputland, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure,
Let's torture anyone and everyone who is suspected of having information on terrorism.

Then we can torture those suspected of capital crimes, such as murder - and get them to confess. Saves a lot of unneccessary court time and expense.

Once we have a precedent, why not move it down the line and use it more liberally for other potential offences.

It worked a treat back in the Spanish Inquisition days.

Above all, let's keep the decision where to use it out of the hands of that bleeding heart judiciary and give all the power to politicians and public servants, where it belongs.

Maybe a department like DOCS or DIMIA could be used to implement it. Remember that Vivian Salon and Cornelia Rau were mere abberations in an otherwise perfect system.

Of course, no innocents would ever get caught up in such matters and films like Gilliam's "Brazil" where "information retrieval" was part of everyday life would never ever happen in real life.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q. If such a suspect were subjected to torture in interogation and died as a result, either before or after yielding life saving information, would the interogator/torturer be charged with murder?
Posted by old nick quick, Sunday, 30 December 2007 4:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now if I remember right during WII , Croatia was a nation of supporters to the German Reich. ie: The Nazis.

Nice place Croatia, but there still lives an under current,of social ignorance of the divertsity of life in the world.

Then it is a hilly country, so communication may still be difficult, between villages!

Hence why they came to the low country areas ie: Australia.

Mirks still seems to live in the past....I blame the parents!
Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 30 December 2007 7:30:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,
Thanks for your forthright response.

Grputland,
LOL
I think you are jumping at shadows – never mind, it’s probably only those elephants’ fooling around.

I don’t consider myself in any camp, not the anti-camp, not the pro-camp and not even, just plain old camp camp!

I’m more a fence sitter – looking for answers.

And the word “demand” as in Horus demanded a yes or no is too harsh ( I’m not a bogey-man interrogator)

The definitions of torture I have seen are not as sure/iron clad as some would imply – they seem more like a loose Lego construct held together with conditions and qualifiers:
a) The Red Cross talks the "intentional infliction of SEVERE suffering or pain for a specific purpose”
b) The US Justice Dept “Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish”
I’m perplexed – do we have a dial which objectively registers ‘severe’ or ‘lasing mental anguishing’ in kilos or joules?

And with all due respect, many of the claims do verge on religious faith:
‘Torture cannot save lives’
It bears repeating:
Torture cannot save lives
Torture cannot save lives
Torture cannot save lives
If you say it often enough it sound like a Gregorian chant –and it has much akin with one
(Most of us may live in the age of uncertainty & see shades or gray –but not everyone it seems )
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 30 December 2007 9:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus
> "I don’t consider myself in any camp, not the anti-camp, not the pro-camp and not even, just plain old camp camp! I’m more a fence sitter – looking for answers."

If that's the case, it's not at all clear from your posts in this discussion. On the contrary, you sneer at civil liberties and the notion of witch-hunts like a paid-up neo-conservative!

When you attack "civil liberties", you're not mocking the right of unemployed homosexual hippies to smoke pot on the steps of Parliament House. Instead, you're stating that you don't value your freedom to associate with whom you choose, or speak your mind in contradiction with the government or police.

Horus
> "Torture cannot save lives"

In rare circumstances, torture will save lives. But so what? Giving every Australian a handgun would also save some lives, but the benefit would be lost in the escalation of shootings and violent crime.

Horus
> "do we have a dial which objectively registers ‘severe’ or ‘lasing mental anguishing’ in kilos or joules?"

If drowning prisoners, electrocuting their testicles, or beating their hands with steel cables to the point of permanent disability isn't "severe", what other tricks would you suggest to those wimpish torturers?

Horus
> "many of the claims do verge on religious faith"

On the contrary, the claims have more in common with rational atheism: we have no proof that torture is effective (apart from the unverified statements of the torturers themselves), and lots to show that it isn't.

By approving torture without evidence you're simply indulging the desire for revenge - a feature of human history which we overcame to construct the most civilised culture ever.

Prove to me that even one terrorist act has been prevented in Australia by the use of torture. Show me the confession and the evidence to back it up. Or is the public too stupid too judge for itself?

This isn't a theoretical debate about what MIGHT happen IF we regressed to the use of torture. It is happening right now, mostly to people who have done nothing wrong.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 30 December 2007 10:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By declaring 'war on terror' we have already granted licence to the security apparatus to carry out pre-emptive operations against those identified as 'enemies' in such a war. This logically includes active intelligence gathering and counter-intelligence operations with interception being the objective but to endorsed torture as a means of waging war is also terrorism.
The use of such tactics as kidnap, assassination, torture and murder by the security apparatus is not compatible with any type of ethical government and would be gravely dangerous to any free society.
To sacrifice some degrees of transparency in process for operational reasons may be permissable within an effective, legal framework but fully subscribing to the idea of 'fighting fire with fire' or 'an eye for an eye' has too many legal and moral implications to be seriously debated.
Terrorising and torturing are too similar to be an effective counterweight one another.
Posted by old nick quick, Monday, 31 December 2007 5:35:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far the arguments for allowing torture are intellectually feeble.

That there are specific examples where the use of waterboarding and other coercive techiques have provided useful information where normal interogation wouldn't, but the only times where this has been successful is where:
= The suspect is known to have specific information,
- The information is time critical,
- The information can be immediately acted on.
The times where this applies is rare, and almost always in conflict areas. In all other situations, the information provided by normal interogation is better.

The reality is that where coercive means are permitted they are always abused because the decision is left to the interogator as to when it is applicable. The results in Iraq where that the population rapidily grew to hate the Americans and violent resistance grew. The result is hundreds of thousands losing their lives unnecessarily.

To say that in Australia that this power will not be abused is laughable especially in the light of the atrocious abuse of power in the Haneef case.

Aside from the obvious moral bankruptcy of the author's proposal it is also practically flawed.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 31 December 2007 5:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus,

Sancho and others have already answered your questions for me. Most of what I would have said to your second post has also been said already.

Gosh darn 'two posts in 24 hours' rule. :)

One point I might add though: If we're going to start nit-picking with definitions to the extent that you are, then we'd never define anything; which makes your request for a definition start to look like a red herring, and a frivolous attempt to shift the goal posts.

Questioning what constitutes torture is like a suicidal person wondering if they should jump from the 15th floor or the 20th floor.

You don't need to definition as clear-cut as what you're asking for to see where it's all leading. Just a basic understanding of history and a sound knowledge of today's political climate.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 31 December 2007 9:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grputland’s interesting posts say we cherry-pick deontological and consequentialist ethics. Although mainly consequentialist, there is a kind of inverted deontology in some arguments for using torture – that some people/crimes are so bad that the rules of civilised behaviour don’t apply.

But taking Mirko’s consequentialist argument to its logical conclusion, there is no reason why torture should be confined only to those we know to be guilty, and to cases of extreme danger.

If, say, there’s only a 50% chance of a suspect having information that could prevent a bomb destroying dozens of innocent lives, isn’t the balance of utility such that the suspect’s suffering is outweighed by the potential benefit of the information received? The likely guilt or innocence of the suspect is material only to the extent that it affects the probability of attaining useful information.

And, if a particularly tough suspect fails to provide information when tortured themselves, doesn’t the same logic permit the torture of, say, their children, if this persuades the suspect to provide the information sought? In countries where torture is used it is fairly common for individuals to be coerced by being forced to watch their loved ones tortured. It may be cruel and unfair, but if, as Arjay claims, “the individual is never greater than the whole”, isn’t that acceptable too, in extremis?

And how do we determine the point at which the feared consequences of not torturing become so severe that torture is warranted? Surely by that same calculus – the good anticipated exceeds the bad inflicted, and can’t be achieved in any other way – we’d be justified in inflicting pain in many situations, for example persuading violent criminals to betray their accomplices, or even as a deterrent. Perhaps the benefits anticipated would be less than for a terrorist who has planted a bomb, and the degree of acceptable violence therefore less, but the same logic applies. The only difference is a question of extent.

Taking the extreme – and extremely unlikely – example of the terrorist and the ticking bomb disguises the full implications of where this logic leads.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 31 December 2007 12:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Torture has not been found to be a very effective method of getting information.

Torture can make someone give information quickly, but the information may not be accurate.

So the torturer then has the task of verifying whether or not the information is accurate. This may require diplomacy, and torturers are not often renown for much diplomacy.

How Mirko Bagaric became the head of a law department in a university is beyond comprehension.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 31 December 2007 4:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I summed it up pretty well in my last post.If Mirko's mentality prevailed during WW2,then the Nazis and the Japs would have won.In times of war ,you get information by whatever means possible.We just did not hear all the gory details that were used to elicit information from the enemy.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 31 December 2007 8:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I knew the Walter Mitty type character for a number of years until I clicked that he was the same Jim the school library was named after. Nothing ever seemed to rattle Jim. Walter Mitty, NOT.

Slightly built and giving the impression of a timid person, I was flabbergasted to learn that Jim was in Z-Company (that is my recollection but it could have been called something similar) and then more surprised to learn what Z-Company specialized in. They were routinely parachuted behind enemy lines in SE Asia with the mission of kidnapping key Japanese soldiers and then to interrogate them.

Jim, like most WWII vets who were actually involved in the carnage of military action, would speak little of his experiences. He did not give a detailed response when I asked him about how they got information from the captured soldiers but said that they had sworn an oath of secrecy and so he would not be able to write a book as I had suggested. However, he did say various methods were employed up to and including the "talk or be kicked out of a plane at altitude" method.

It seems the secrecy oath may have been required in the 1940s to circumvent the highly evolved individuals who would have demonstrated their objections to the various interrogation techniques of Z-Company; or perhaps additionally to protect other diggers from retribution by the Japanese.

Of course that concern is just another absurd contention of the pro-torture proponents who are concerned with the safety of military personnel on duty.

But modern communications have forced many changes. It is clear to me that those who believe we would not win WWII if it were fought today, are absolutely correct.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 1:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,
Sorry, I forgot I supposed to genuflect when I saw the magic words ‘civil liberties’– well, raspberry to that. (CL is entitled to the same challenges & mockery as any other orthodoxy).

I have a lot of empathy for wronged parties –ALL wronged parties.
Unfortunately, terror victims don’t get a chance to appeal their sentences, & they usually don’t have the luxury of having their rights read to them, either.

You offer some in-your-face examples of bad practice.
But it may be more enlightening to turn the issue inside out:
As in, what is legit practice when dealing with prisoners?
It would be inspiring to see civil libertarians in front line positions living and dying by their principles rather than in protect back rooms watching others die trying to uphold CL principles’ – while they heap criticism.

Also, it may be enlightening to juxtaposition what we cannot do to prisoners but can do to our fellow citizens. For example, according to accepted protocol it is illegal to punish a prisoner who refuses to cooperate – many employees & (friendly) soldiers would welcome the same ‘rights’.

And as for:
“Prove to me that even one terrorist act has been prevented in Australia by the use of torture. Show me the confession and the evidence to back it up. Or is the public too stupid too judge for itself?”

(Strange you should seek to artificially limit it to Aust!)
I must here, throw in the towel –you’ve got me there!
You see, even when one of our more prominent mujahideen had written letters proudly describing his attacks on villagers in Kashmir & Bosnia, and is caught at the scene of the crime(s) , his family, & CL supporters, were still able to maintain “NOTHING WAS EVER PROVEN”
As indeed it wasn’t – it has no doubt already gone-down in the CL annals as simply just another ASIO/CIA beat up!
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 4:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus wrote, apparently concerning David Hicks: "...even when one of our more prominent mujahideen had written letters proudly describing his attacks on villagers in Kashmir & Bosnia, and is caught at the scene of the crime(s), his family, & CL supporters, were still able to maintain `NOTHING WAS EVER PROVEN.'"

Nothing was proven because no charges were laid, notwithstanding that the actions in question were punishable by 10 years' jail under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978.

And why were no charges laid? Because (a) the final decision on whether to lay charges rested with the Attorney-General, and (b) the Government, in order to fabricate an excuse to leave Hicks in U.S. custody and thereby avoid offending its great and powerful ally, had claimed that Hicks could not be charged with anything under Australian law. This claim was always a lie, and always known to be a lie; and charging Hicks with anything would expose the lie.

No civil libertarian would have complained if Hicks had simply been hit with the full force of the criminal law. But he wasn't; and THAT was the problem.
Posted by grputland, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 2:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus
> "It would be inspiring to see civil libertarians in front line positions living and dying by their principles rather than in protect back rooms watching others die...while they heap criticism."

That's meaningless, because you're defining civil libertarians as armchair critics and everyone at the sharp end as an advocate of torture.

Don't you think there are plenty of people actively involved in military and intelligence operations who are appalled by the use of torture (and/or believe it's ineffective)? And while you're supporting torture, are you out there dealing with terrorist suspects? Or are you sitting in your living room, watching foreigners being tortured and heaping criticism on sticklers for the rule of law?

I'm very interested to know what you think civil liberties are. Conservatives seem particularly prone to the equity and democracy are somehow intrinsic to western nature, and that we can abuse our freedoms without fear, although history is full of nations which have gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation once the people started rencouncing their rights in exchange for the illusion of protection.

And, well, we're Australian, and we're told that torture is necessary to protect Australia. If that's not the case, why are you giving it the green light? Or, if there's no jurisdiction, do you also champion the right of the Mahdi Army to torture Australian soldiers in order to protect Iraqi ctizizens? And that's the crux of it: either you oppose torture absolutely, or you permit it for any particular group which feels it necessary for protection, whether friend or foe.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 3:28:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops. Fourth paragraph should read:

I'm very interested to know what you think civil liberties are. Conservatives seem particularly prone to the equity and democracy are somehow intrinsic to western nature, and that we can abuse our freedoms without fear, although history is full of nations which have gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation once the people started rencouncing their rights in exchange for the illusion of protection.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 3:32:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho summarizes the moral principal correctly in his last post. Thank you.
Posted by old nick quick, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 8:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grputland,
Whether DH should have been charged in the USA or Aust is immaterial.
i) His case would have been brought to finality, &
ii) He would have likely have received a heavier sentence

If CLs had not at ever step, politicised the process.

Sancho,
I am not suggesting that CL are one monolithic group, much of what passes for high minded concern is merely careerism by political & legal drones.

You cannot make a blanket statement that ‘torture’ does not work.
i) There is evidence from security operatives that certain torture practices work– in certain circumstance –with certain individuals, and
ii) Game theory predicts that the most effective responses are often not ‘nice’ strategies but tit-for-tat strategies.

You imply that our behaviour will determine how we inturn are treated.
( do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus?)
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Mahdi army, Alqueda , Hamas & their ilk, may play our media & our CL, but they have no intention of playing by our/your morality.

Our defence forces have never been so scrutinised, so supervised, so accountable (perhaps, I should just use the term so emasculated) as they have today.
As Cowboy Joe pointed out & as I have heard myself , many activities occurred in the past conflicts which suburban CL would frown on
Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 4:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)
It is also interesting that much of the current noise arise from CL circles has centred around the processing of suspects .One could get the impression that the rules that Aust has in place are exceptionally draconian . But such paragons of proper behaviour as France & England have far tighter controls, yet have not ‘gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation’.

The only thing that says activity A is wrong, is your conviction.
And if we sign a new convention tomorrow, activity B may suddenly become immoral too ( And by the by have you noticed that many of our great statesmen were once great terrorists –and many are now the darlings of the most proper people in the most proper places )


Sancho, how do you know that your code of conduct isn’t as flawed as Bin Ladin’s?
No doubt you have a warm fuzzy feeling deep in your soul –but then, so does Bin Laden( and Bin Laden has an ace up his sleeve- he can look forward to 16 virgins in the after life!
Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 4:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't avocate the use of torture against civilians under any circumstances in peacetime, but have no problems in time of war where the information could be used to save the lives of innocent people.

Why should we always play by the rules, do we honestly believe that Islamic and Christian terrorists care about the use of torture or other human rights abuses in order to achieve their objectives.

Mossard stopped using torture after some scandles in the past that made the knesset lefties demand changes, Hamas has repaid that support by sucide bombing Jewish civilians.

I have no problems with the use of any methods physical or other to extract information from terrorists that save Australian lives. Why because maybe if the Indonesian police had used such methods on the Bali bombers when they first came to their attention, them we might just have prevented the Bali bombings happening by at least 12 months and saved lives.

I have seen torture being applied to terroists whilst in the army and have seen many brave terrorist be reduced to quivering pants wetting cowards. So giving the Bali bombers the treatment would be a pleasure to watch as it would take the smile of their faces especially if we applied the treatment to their families.
Posted by Yindin, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 2:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus wrote:

"Whether DH should have been charged in the USA or Aust is immaterial.
i) His case would have been brought to finality, &
ii) He would have likely have received a heavier sentence

If CLs had not at ever step, politicised the process."

Oh. So, by Horus's logic, CLs who demanded that the law be allowed to take its course were politicizing the process, while politicians who wanted to bypass the law by a purely executive process, and who lied in order to do so, were not. And the fact that Hicks didn't get the longer sentence provided by the ordinary criminal law was all the fault of those who wanted to apply that law.

Well, I suppose if you torture your logic long enough, it will confess.
Posted by grputland, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 5:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, thank you for your articulate posts.

Horus and Yindin, torture has been applied to people with information and people without information. Both have been reduced to 'quivering pants wetting cowards', that's what torture does. Horus is most likely an 'arm chair torturer', Yindin you imply to have experience as a soldier. Hopefully not an Australian soldier.

Both my parents and my extended family know quite a bit about torture. They were prisoners of war in WWII, both as soldiers and civilians. Though the Japanese used it on soldiers and civilians even children as young as 13 (my father) it did not result in victory for them. I won't touch on the personal costs of torture as we are only concerned here with the greater good and a few lives is not of consequence if it can save other lives.

Some posters appear to discredit the notion that armed conflict can be waged according to rules. Winning by any means is what counts. That's how the Sadam Huseins rule their patch. If that's OK, let the most ruthless rule, then those who think so should say so up front. Civil liberties obviously are then of no importance.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 5:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading all this stuff, you would think there was a war on. You might think there was some point to all the wrangling.

- but it's all pointless tripe, because there is NO War On Terror.

There is only a struggle for resources, money and power. There is only a struggle to maintain the hocus-pocus while it lasts. All it takes is an article like this one from Mirko to induce a kind of morbidity of the intellect -

"Remember, remember the Great War On Terror - gunpowder, treason and plot".

Looking back to where all this hocus-pocus began, please reference the latest video from the 9-11 bereaved, who are not so easily diverted as we:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679

You will need a lazy two hours to take it all in. I would be interested in your thoughts Mirko.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 6:35:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris and many others may not be aware or may choose to ignore the fact that B Laden declared war on western countries, long before 9/11. The video of his declaration has been played on television several times.

Aren't most wars fought over resources, money and power? If Chris would like to forgo his share of Australia’s resources and money I can provide my bank account number.

I love the sages who derisively dismiss the current situation as “all about oil” apparently they all walk to work; where a steam driven factory is controlled by a PC housed in plastic that was sourced from mung beans. For these individuals I would like them to put Canadian Oil Sands into the search engine. Then for a second search add China to the former.

I would think the families of the dead and maimed (from all sides) would be suitably outraged to hear that some safe and affluent Aussie denies the existence of a war in Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan.

Has Chris articulated a modification of the old definition of a recession? You know -- if I loose my job it is a depression but if Chris looses his it is a recession. If some one known to Chris is killed in Iraq, it is a war; otherwise it is just a morality play, whose only use is as a stimulus for pseudo intellectuals to flaunt their cognitive might with.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Thursday, 3 January 2008 12:08:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Bush doesn't share your concern about Mr Bin Laden:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

- but then, the good ol' boys helped 'em get away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_BS83BmTIQ

- while the rest of us swallowed the playschool stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OahfoDE6Fg

No wonder Bhutto had to go. Loose lips sink ships:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

This is the FBI's wanted poster for OBL:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

- note, there is no mention of 9-11. That's because they admit that there is insufficient actionable evidence connecting the two. Doesn't it make you just a teeny bit worried, considering we have been a party to the slaughter of a million Iraqis or so?

Or is the crime so monstrous - the truth so frightening that we can't find the courage to face it?

Maybe Peter Finch should have the last word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HjHwrIuqHs

*

Did I mention that I am writing this on a laptop in a cave?

- if you believe that, you'll believe anything -
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 3 January 2008 10:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko's arguments are thought-provoking as ever, but we can do without the more emotive comments about civil libertarian 'fanatics' etc.

Some of the holes have been ably pointed out by others. The overriding problem is that Mirko is providing very selective individual cases where a utilitarian case could be made out that torture created more good than harm.

However public policy is not based on selected individual cases, but on the overall balance of costs v benefits of changing the law to allow torture generically.

The history of world governments shows that they cannot be trusted to use that power wisely, and to discriminate between the rare cases when torture might serve the common good, and the other cases where it leads to plain simple abuse without any public benefit at all.
Posted by Michael T, Thursday, 3 January 2008 3:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy