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 > General Discussion > Terrorism and Torture.

Terrorism and Torture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Post Mumbai we have the following:

-Many dead and injured.
-One living terrorist captured.

Would it surprise anyone if the Indian government applied 'persuasion' of an extreme nature to this individual to ferret out every bit of information he can supply?

Given that the attack was of such a horrific nature, and this man is the one key to unlock where it all came from..... then surely it would be understandable if the Indian authorities used every means at their disposal to force this person to tell all?

The following should be kept in mind.

1/ What he tells.. can be verified before making it public.
Verification should not be too difficult.

2/ He might know of further attacks planned.

I'm not going to comment either way, and probably won't say much on this thread other than this, but I'm curious about how others might feel.

The usual complaints from some people is that it (torture) doesn't work:
a) 'torture produces the information the victim thinks the authorities want' which might not be true.

b) To do such a thing (Torture) is an infringement of his human rights.

c) Due process.. courts lawyers etc.. is the way to go.

What are your thoughts?
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 2:02:04 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
We had this discussion a year ago: forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6791

No torture.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 3:31:01 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
"The healthy man does not torture others -- generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers." Carl Jung

We all know what you think about "human rights", boazycarp. The fact is, they are not there as an inconvenience to religions or common sense. They are there to help safeguard our freedoms from tyrants that would dispose of them at the slightest of opportunities.

Torture is not about them or what they will do to us or the "innocent" (the innocent are always invoked in these sorts of arguments). It's about us and what we turn ourselves into by consciously consenting to these acts (torture) continuing. As a society, we have a choice whether we want to allow torture to happen or not. To not allow it is protection against a systematic evil that will be used time and time again against people and solve nothing in the long run, as you may save a few lives tomorrow, but you'll still have the threat of being tortured by your own government long after todays threat has disappeared. Lastly, you don't make many friends by torturing their relatives, no matter what they did.

No torture, no exceptions.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 4:11:38 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
Once without doubt you could expect a Christian to stand against torture.
Even if it meant swimming against the tide of public opinion.
Terrorism is wrong, in my view it is evil, but if the torture was being done by terrorists to Christian hostages would the question be answered in the same way?
I am concerned both about the increasing blind hate from terrorists, see no way around a true war some time soon.
But watching closely the evolution of some Christian groups into something far from the basis for their beliefs.
Can men, ordinary men, re write their own holly books? is it ever right to torture a human being?
Are some humans lessor men?
I have no love of terrorists, any of them, but torture? Polycarp, could your torture another human being?
Could you watch them scream in fear and pain?
Could you as Americans did take photos to brag on?
We, all who know the story, hold those who murdered the 6 million Jews in ww2 saying I was only following orders in contempt, so we should.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 4 December 2008 4:28:52 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
Folks....I raise the issue because I'll bet that bloke is getting a good serve of persuasion at the moment.

For all the self righteous ...consider this:

If part of this plan revealed an attempt to stage a Nuclear explosion....(remember, Pakistan had a rogue Islamist scientist who sold Nuclear technology to other rogue states) then... one might find it in the interests of errrr a whole city, to find out every bit of info one can about the source and capabilities of the group.

Torture might be too strong a word... but persuasion can take many forms.

For the 'Human Rights' crowd... ask yourselves this:

"Who's human rights take precedent"? those of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who you might expose to a nuclear holocaust...... or those of the one man who can assist you in preventing it?

I serve utter ridicule on the thought that the rights of that one evil individual are greater than those of the 100s of 1000s.
I also hold up for utter scorn the idea that 'human rights' are some kind of absolute which defines us. They don't..we invented them, and they only apply when we use brute force to enforce them... they exist within a framework of power, which came to 'be' due to brutality and greed.

If police exercise some creativity in extracting information from an individual like this.. (my preferred approach is to use technology, and psychology, including brain wave analysis) for the sake of the many.... can we question this?
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 4 December 2008 6:17:42 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
How utterly unsurprising that Porky would want to find a hypothetical situation where torture is justified.

Mind you, wouldn't that be a case of MIUAUG if it was?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 4 December 2008 6:48:09 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
"Self righteous" Boaz? How ironic.

You are using an "end justifies the means" argument, and I must say it's totally unbecoming of a 'Christian'.

Human rights are not an absolute, nor do they define us. They are there to protect us. All of us. This is why they should not be dumped arbitrarily at the first sign of trouble. Ask yourself this, given what we know about how these terrorist cells operate, how likely do you think that that young terrorist knows vital information that would save a city from a WMD? And yet you would still have them put to the rack. What if turned out he was a young tourist that happened to bump into a police officer at the wrong time and was a case of mistaken identity?

How many actual individuals human rights (evil or otherwise) abuses does it take to outweigh one hypothetical cities? You would do well in a country like China comrade Boaz.

Interrogation and many advanced interview techniques incorporating technology (such as polygraphs) are not torture. They should be used to find the truth.

If there's one thing that Jesus got right, it's that the end that you get by using any means available (especially 'evil' means), is not the end you are going to want. You get conversions by loving your enemy, not by torturing them.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 4 December 2008 7:22:16 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
That's pretty disgusting, Boaz, calling those who oppose the use of torture "self righteous".

Truly, you are an appalling advertisement for Christianity.

In fact, I'm starting to suspect that you might be a double agent, working for a secret Islamic propaganda cell...

Now there's a thought to conjure with...

But back to your scenario for a moment, Boaz, tacky though it is.

If you were an interrogator, would you accept the following "voluntary statement" from your prisoner?

"Actually, it was a set-up. We're just a bunch of mercenaries, sent in by the Israeli government to add to the pressure against Muslim countries, particularly Iran and Pakistan. They told us we had an escape route, but betrayed us."

I'd bet that you wouldn't.

I suggest that faced with this confession, you would apply some of your more persuasive methods, until he told you the following:

"yes, yes, I confess, we were a crack suicide squad, trained by Al Qaeda in Pakistan, in fact by Osama bin Laden himself, with the full cooperation of the Pakistan government"

At which point you would declare yourself satisfied, allow the prisoner to have a fatal accident, and publish the "results" of your interrogation.

Apart from the fact that you are now no better than the murderers who rampaged through the City, the one thing you are unlikely to get through torture is accurate information.

You might get the "information" you want, but you won't be able to use it. So in reality, torture is simply revenge. Naked, uncomplicated and straightforward revenge.

Now, who is supposed to own "revenge"?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 4 December 2008 7:46:43 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
Torture is never justified.

It demeans us to the same level as the terrorists.

It justifies their actions.

Guantanamo Bay - is a prime example.

No. No torture. How can you trust what a person
tells you under duress? There must be a better way
of getting information. Like profiling by experts
in that area.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 4 December 2008 8:07:48 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
Despite overwhelming evidence from the FBI that torture produces no real nett gain in intelligence and what it does produce is regarded as "suspect", I'm guessing that Polycarp would rather see 100 innocent people tortured than to let one guilty person possibly go free.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 4 December 2008 9:47:19 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
Well I don't mind being the cat among the peaceful pidgeons to get a thriving discussion going :)

but bear in mind..I stated my own position on this. "Psychological and technology" which I understand can be quite successful.

But I'm also interested in exploring the mindset of the 'anti-torture' mob.. and the balance of rights at stake.

ASSUMPTION. "Torture can extract true information" (this is challenged by foxy.. fair enough on the surface)

If the assumption is correct.. leaving aside the 'it makes us as bad as them' argument (which is quite falacious) for a moment.. does anyone seriously challenge the greater good which can result from the pain applied to one individual which saves the lives of 100s of 1000s?

There is only 2 directions you can go with a response to this.

1/ "The assumption is incorrect"

2/ "Even if correct, torture is not allowed"

Now.. if the assumption CAN be shown to be true, I'm wondering how the slaughter of tens of thousands which could be avoided through the sacrifice of one evil person, can in fact be justified?

Anyone care to try that one?

Ok..I'll try. "There must be another way to find out the information"

To which I would expect a response from a thinker:

a) It might be too late.
b) We had all the resources available before this event, and it didn't help us.
c) The Americans warned them and they just didn't take heed.

But back to the assumption.

I'm afraid I cannot find the source now..but I do recall a former CIA man explaining how they captured a key Lebanese (might have even been a Phalangist) who they tortured (beating mainly) into revealing information which saved many lives and prevented some horrific operations.
Bottom line. It can..but does not always "work".

http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/a/TortureTerror2.htm

<Is torture effective? Prof. Dershowitz, who is morally opposed to torture, writes that he believes law enforcement officials will employ torture in “ticking bomb” cases.>

I tend to gravitate toward this position.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:22:17 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
How many "evil people" should be sacrificed to demonstrate the assumption?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:28:49 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
At the risk of 'flooding' I should as some quotes from the previous discussion on this:

Desmond Manderson:

The centre-piece of Bagaric and Clarke’s defence argues by analogy to “the right of self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another”. Just as we are entitled to respond with violence to a murderous attack, they say, we are entitled to protect others: if the only way to protect them is by torturing somebody for information, then torture must be legitimate too. But the analogy falls down in at least THREE ways.

FIRST, the principle of self-defence recognises a reality: when it’s “him or me” a law that said I could not respond to an attacker would be simply unenforceable. Here the violence of torture is a choice deliberately made and carried out, and not purely responsive.

COMMENT-
RUBBISH. Mumbai IS a reality, and extracting information is absolutely 'responsive'.

SECOND, their analogy assumes the only point it needs to prove. One can legally defend oneself

COMMENT- huh?

THIRD self-defence is about individual action, torture is about government action.

COMMENT- more rubbish. 'Torture' of a captured individual who massacred so many lives would have a goal of preventing future attacks and is very much 'self defense'.

I'm attacking the arguments here.. thats all. I don't believe they hold any weight whatsoever. Clearly Manderson lives in some cuckoo land academic bubble not connected to the real world.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:35:41 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
Hmmmm... I have noted here that no one has asked if the Mumbai Terrorists had any regard to the Human Rights of those persons they killed & injured during their attack. I don't think so.

So the Question really is. "Should the authorities have any regard for the terrorists right?" I don't think so. Like with like.

Now. for all the sickly sweet out there. Please detail how YOU would persuade this terrorist to impart his knowledge of his terrorist group to the Indian Authorities? I will expect a Dot Point explanation, of course. Maybe we will learn something new.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:54:55 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
I take umbrage at the suggestion that because I don't advocate torture that I'm somehow "sickly sweet".

Ask yourself this big fella: How many people do you think were tortured last year in India? How many people do you think were tortured in the last decade? How many women raped and humiliated?

Then ask your decidedly unsweet self this: How many terrorist attacks did they prevent? I know that is a question that is very difficult to answer, but it's certainly easier to count how many they failed to prevent.

Before you answer take a look at these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7734777.stm
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0204/97/ (written in 2003)

Yeah, torture's just dandy isn't it? Who needs human rights?
I'll ask again: how many people should we torture to prove that we can prevent an attack? How many Muslims, how many Sikhs, Maoists, women?
Torture as a policy won't stop the attacks.

Any suggestion that I don't like torture because I'm soft or "sickly sweet" you can just shove straight up where the sun don't shine, which is probably where they'll stick something if they ever suspect you of terrorism in Andhra Pradesh.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 4 December 2008 1:05:57 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
Polycarp

I almost found myself close to a dilemma.

My immediate response would be to treat such a terrorist in a humane manner and protect him in a way he does not deserve.

However, should it be my daughters or friends at risk from the terrorists co-conspirators, I would do everything and anything to extract all information / intelligence possible.

George Orwell wrote “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

That being so, I would have to accept responsibility for the actions of those rough men, regardless of how clean I might pretend my hands were.

So how do I resolve or maybe just rationalize what to do?

I guess, when someone engages in the willful murder of others, their right to any “humane treatment” is suspended and they bear and suffer the consequences of what they started.

So just place me in the “heartless” basket,

The company is better there than over with the sanctimonious hypocrites
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 4 December 2008 1:36:43 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
Boaz, your capacity for self-deception knows no bounds.

>>bear in mind..I stated my own position on this. "Psychological and technology" which I understand can be quite successful<<

What do you regard as "psychological and technology" torture, Boaz?

>>ASSUMPTION. "Torture can extract true information"<<

Sure, studies have found that torture can occasionally do this.

However, these same studies also conclude that it is a non-predictable event. Where people have been trained to resist or mislead, for example, the chances that the information is "true" diminish, and the information elicited cannot be relied upon.

Please note also, that the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM 34-52), describes torture or coercion as a “poor technique” because it “yields unreliable results” and “can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” ("On the Effectiveness of Coercive Interrogation" Anush Emelianova and Daniel Friedman, Washington Undergraduate Law Review)

http://students.washington.edu/wulr/archive/?volume=2&issue=1

This is echoed in the CIA's Counterintelligence Interrogation manual, which warns against the dangers of coercion for intelligence agents, explaining that through psychological and physical duress, the source’s “ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist."

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/kubark.htm

It also points out "In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance."

And Jayb, I'm sure your bravado sounds great down the pub...

>>So the Question really is. "Should the authorities have any regard for the terrorists right?" I don't think so<<

But I think you are working along the same self-deceiving lines as Boaz. Revenge - using torture - is great, especially when there's no chance of you getting hurt. The fact that you won't get any useable information is secondary to your getting your own back on the evil creatures, right?

But don't kid yourself that it is anything more than revenge, pure and simple.

And don't forget Alan Dershowitz’s argument. “We won’t know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he’s not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures"

Think on that, if you ever find yourself in the hands of Homeland Security.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 4 December 2008 2:16:50 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
So Col, you would override your immediate response by invoking your children, you also avoid the word "torture". Weasel words.
Humane treatment (or some lack thereof) is not the issue. Torture is the issue. Legalised torture is an abrogation of peoples individual rights for the security of the state. It is at complete odds with libertarianism.

So now we have a self-confessed "libertarian" and an evangelical "Christian" rationalising away a soft attitude to torture, and to use a quote from George Orwell to boot!
And written with not even a whiff of irony.

I wonder what ol' George had to say about torture eh Col? Maybe we could set up a Ministry of Love.

Col, I wonder what your attitude would be if one of your friends or children were ever erroneously picked up as suspects and not "treated humanely" (as you like to put it).

Just ask yourself this: would you advocate the use of torture by Australian police?

If you can answer that one truthfully, then you will know who the real hypocrites are.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 4 December 2008 8:52:15 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
Bugsy...you said:

"Legalised torture is an abrogation of peoples individual rights for the security of the state. It is at complete odds with libertarianism."

Sounds very pristine mate...but you avoided the hard question raised by Col. Ultimately, it comes down to your family and it's exposure to increasingly huge attack potential.

We have long since past the days when a few crackpots might just take a few potshots at others.. or.. explode the local pizza parlour for not paying it's 'tax'.... we now stand on the threshold of either

-Dirty bombs
-Nuclear devices.
-Biological weapons.

all being used by terrorists.

Pericles.. I didn't make myself clear on that 'psychological and technological' bit.. I was not meaning 'as a means of torture' I've heard of an approach which uses brain wave analysis to show when people are lying. It's quite benign and harmless and there's not even an 'ouch'....

The GOAL of course is 'information' not to inflict pain and suffering on the moron who is in custody.

yes, I quite accept all those points you raised from the various documents.
I think governments must assess all the variables and possibilities in such situations, and balance their approach to the potential risk.

Bottom line.. it is not 'human rights' which should sway them, but the safety of the community. After all... the community has a much higher human right than the captured terrorist.. to live in safety and peace.

I tend to share Col's idea that when a man runs amock with an AK47 and kills hundreds of people.. and has a sack of grenades on his back.... he somehow lost his right to anything. There should never even be a trial.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:29:11 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
Col seems to think we should torture killers does that say we turn our prisons into torture chambers?
Poly firmly refuses to tell us if torturing Christians is different that Muslims.
Look at why we have terrorists and murders like those that send Polycarp into a flutter.
Educated to hate, belief in a God, some very real reasons to hate some purely insane.
Each step we take to match the inhumanity primitive hate is a step away from what separates us from terrorists.
You only have to re read the thread to see poly is again peddling his bike.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 5 December 2008 4:05:09 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 can routinely think of exceptions where I'd probably be willing to override one set of principles because the exception seemed justified. The ticking bomb scenario, a case where a child has been abducted and you are really sure you have the abductor in custody but don't know where the child is. Both are rare.

What I'm not willing to agree to is authorising others to have the legal authority to make those calls on my behalf. People who may enjoy the job a little to much, people who might have agenda's which are not mine, people who might serve political or religious master who I have no passion for. I don't choose to do my bit to turn society into the type of place where torture is allowed.

The charater of our society comes at a cost, sometimes that cost is a high one but the cost of going the other way is far higher.

If there are hard men in a backroom doing dirty work to keep my hands clean I don't want them doing their deeds in secret and outside of the law. I don't want politicians to be able to give vague directions which don't incriminate the politician and yet have "faceless" people know that their duty to my country is to do dirty deeds.

If I thought it might save the life of someone I love I might be willing to torture but I don't want the place where I live to be the kind of place where others might make the decision to torture me or someone close to me because they thought it was important.

The cost is too high.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 5 December 2008 6:41:11 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
Pericles, Don't drink, don't smoke & the missus won't let me associate with bad women.

I am still waiting to see the sickly sweet crowds Dot Point on how they would extract reliable information from a terrorist.

1. Tell them that you love them.
2. Give them a nice warm bath & some nice clothes.
3. A lolly to be good.
4. A bean bag for time out.
5. A nice hot cup of tea & a lie down.
6. A nice meal.
7. Someone to massage away their fears & worries.
8. A phone call to mummy.

I can see it all now. They'd be so confused they'd squeal like pigs. (Sorry you can't say pigs, their Muslim, will parrot do?)
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 5 December 2008 7:43:09 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
Bugsy –“If you can answer that one truthfully, then you will know who the real hypocrites are.”

Actually, I have answered that all ready and the only allusions to hypocrisy are all yours.

I guess, Bugsy you do illustrate why I prefer the heartless bastards, they are more honest than you sanctimonious hypocrites
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 5 December 2008 7:49:43 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
ROBERTS post comes very close to the core of the issue.

When balancing the greater/lesser good.. it is indeed a most diffucult situation and frought with all kinds of dangerous pathways which could take the whole society down a very ugly direction.

But while difficult.... sometimes dirty work needs to be done for the sake of the many. The law is something from ourselves. It does not stand in it's own right separate from we who make it..and it definitely does not remain the sole exclusive property of the lawyers who gain their living from it.

Who chooses what needs to be done.. how far from the law it can go, on whom it may be applied...how much can be applied... really boils down to a judgement call by those entrusted with our defense and welfare.

We are not faced with an all or nothing scenario.. we are faced with a 'What will give the best outcome' one.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 5 December 2008 8:42:21 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
Has the world gone topsy-turvy?

Polyboazycarp arguing for utilitarianism? No absolutes....and for something as despicable as torture no less. Truly you are a compassionate and inspiring Christian.

Now I realise Col is merely an Economic Libertarian (ie 'get your filthy paws off my big wad, government scum') everything has become clearer.

High ideals usually espoused by both, dropped faster than a nympho's knickers at a swingers party as soon as the kiddies are mentioned.

Taking another 'utilitarian' track, my children are at far greater risk of being tortured for little to no reason other than suspicion than to be involved in a terror attack, let alone die or get injured in one. When torture is condoned, it is used far more often as a tool of the state against its own people, this is evidenced by India, Turkey, China and plenty of others. Hypotheical exceptions can always be thought of to allow it on a 'utilitarian' basis, but the fact remains- the threat of torture then remains long after the the threat of imminent attack and eventually hurts far more people. And you hand over the decision making over whether you and your family are a threat directly to the 'rough men'. I would prefer due process. Due process keeps us protected from them.

I can aspire to high ideals without being hypocritical, but also knowing it's not going to happen because people like you will always invoke the 'if it involves my/your/our children/family/friends' argument. I bet they use the same argument in India. It can be persuasive, but that does not mean I have to agree you or forgive the practice of some of these 'rough men' that you are so willing to take responsibility for.

I know someone who has been tortured (a refugee from Eritrea) and it puts a terrible strain on much more than himself and his family. Torture (for whatever reason) happens thousands upon thousands of times each year and the costs far outweigh the benefits. Especially when the 'benefits' are nearly always hypothetical, but the costs are most definitely tangible.

No torture, no exceptions.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 5 December 2008 10:44:11 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
"Who chooses what needs to be done.. how far from the law it can go, on whom it may be applied...how much can be applied... really boils down to a judgement call by those entrusted with our defense and welfare."

I don't choose to trust them with deviating from the law, with "applying" that which is not widely known and allowed by the law.

Your suggestion of the use of truth detection devices does not concern me, although the technology is not tamper proof it might help and it's something that few would consider torture. In my view torture is something is about physical or psychological pain deliberately used against a person to try and force their cooperation.

Are you actually thinking of torture or are you thinking about aid's to questioning which don't use as a component?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 5 December 2008 11:40:41 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
Still no Dot Point from the sweetie Brigade. Hmmm... maybe they don't have an answer, just a lot of Politicaly Correct hot air.

I'd like you to notice, Bugsy, that all the countries you have mentioned have Cultures with one foot in the Dark Ages & one foot in the Modern era. The Dark Age Cultures you are willing to embrace into Australia with Multi-culturism. One exception I have noted is of course the USA, which is only using "like culture" methods on the Terrorists. Methods of which these cultures are used to. These methods of torture are not strange to them just to us.

Be a sweety Bugsy & give us a Dot Point. Do I have to shout.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 5 December 2008 11:41:53 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'm not an expert Jayb, not having had to interrogate a terrorist myself.

>>I am still waiting to see the sickly sweet crowds Dot Point on how they would extract reliable information from a terrorist<<

But here are the words of some who have.

"FBI interrogators Daniel Coleman and Jack Cloonan asserted that detailed and reliable information can only come from rapport-building.
Coleman and Cloonan were among the FBI officers assigned to debrief Jamal al-Fadl, a man personally and operationally close to Osama bin Laden and who handled much of al Qaeda’s finances. He surrendered himself to U.S. custody in 1996. “He’s been very, very important to us,” Coleman said of al Fadl. “When it comes to understanding Al Qaeda, he’s the Rosetta stone.” Coercive interrogation methods were never employed on al Fadl and the FBI agents who worked with him deplore their use. “Brutality may yield a timely scrap of information, [Coleman] conceded. But in the longer fight against terrorism such an approach is ‘completely insufficient,’ he says. ‘You need to talk to people for weeks. Years.’” Not only does rapport-building foster long-term cooperation and ensure far more reliable information, it also encourages other potential defectors who know they will be well treated by their American handlers: “‘You think all of this stuff about torture is going to make people want to come to us?’ Cloonan asked. ‘That’s why I get upset when I hear people talking about stress positions, loud music, and dogs.’”

If you had followed the links I gave in my last post, you could have saved youself the effort of attempting sarcasm.

>>Pericles, Don't drink, don't smoke & the missus won't let me associate with bad women.<<

Perhaps you should get out more.

But Boaz, what's this?

>>When balancing the greater/lesser good.. it is indeed a most diffucult situation [but]... sometimes dirty work needs to be done for the sake of the many. <<

This sounds very MIUAUG.

So tell us, what would Jesus do?

Would he be in favour of torture, do you think?

Only if they're Muslims, perhaps?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 5 December 2008 11:43:24 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
Pericles, where's your Dot Point? You have a lot to say. Say something here. I've asked for your individual thoughts on how YOU would extract information from a 3rd World Terrorist. Please explain your method. Don't try to sidestep the issue.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 5 December 2008 12:36:22 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
No torture, no exceptions. I am with Bugsy.

As soon as your behaviour is at one with the terrorist you become the terroriser. To accept torture is to deny the very human rights you are fighting for.

There are often hard decisions that authorities face when there is little choice. If a plane laden with 200 passengers is known to carry a bomb that will, on landing, kill 50,000 people I can see that an argument might be made to shoot the plane down over a desert to save the lives of many more people - choosing a lesser evil. This does not make it any easier for those in the plane and their loved ones. This is quite different to deliberately inflicing physical or mental pain onto another human being.

History shows that regimes that torture often do indiscriminately with little cause.

NO Torture -ever.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 5 December 2008 12:48:34 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
Bugsy “High ideals usually espoused by both, dropped faster than a nympho's knickers at a swingers party as soon as the kiddies are mentioned.”

Some of us live in the real world where reality is faced every day.

Obviously, you are in a position where you can afford to live without consideration of anyone else, isolated, abstracted from the humanity which pushes people into places which they maybe don’t like and have to make decisions which conflict with an otherwise “noble spirit”.

I repeat, I would do what is needed to be done to a terrorist to prevent the loss of one of my loved ones or another innocent.

I have the courage to accept the consequences of that .

Your sanctimonious attitude is exactly why I prefer the honesty of cold hearted pragmatists, who are prepared to face what some cannot stomach.

When the chips are down, the cold hearted pragmatists just might be there for me but I am certain from your posts, you would make sure you were away somewhere, washing your hands, staying clean, preaching to everyone else how noble you were, safe and away from the hurley-burley of reality.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 5 December 2008 1:04:50 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
Sancho, Bugsy, Belly, C.J.Morgsn, Pericles, foxy, Wobbles, RObert, pelican, Dot Point.... Now!

Fair suck of the sav. I've given you my 8 Point plan. Now give us yours. Maybe you can save the world. Who knows.

Guts or Glory. My bet. No guts.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 5 December 2008 2:50:39 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
Sorry. JayB, I hadn't realized that your 8 point plan was serious.

>>Fair suck of the sav. I've given you my 8 Point plan<<

Let me see, what was it again?

>>1. Tell them that you love them.
2. Give them a nice warm bath & some nice clothes.
3. A lolly to be good.
4. A bean bag for time out.
5. A nice hot cup of tea & a lie down.
6. A nice meal.
7. Someone to massage away their fears & worries.
8. A phone call to mummy.

Guts or Glory. My bet. No guts.<<

If that list represents guts, JayB, there would appear to be nothing more to be said.

Now, how about giving us a full list of what you, personally, would do to a suspect.

Then give some thought to what you would be comfortable with, if you found yourself in the chair, with your knackers hooked up to the mains, knowing that you had done nothing wrong.

How long before you would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 5 December 2008 5:01:07 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 'real world' Col?

By all means, let's talk about the 'real world'.

In the real world, India on average nearly 1500 people per year die in custody, a large percentage of these from torture. Between 2002 and 2007, approximately 7500 people died in custody.
It is estimated that at least an equal number are killed in custody by army and paramiltary forces in insurgency affected areas.
India is not a signatory to the UN convention against torture.

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12646

In the real world, there are thousands upon thousands of families whose loved ones have either disappeared, died in custody without legal recourse, or have to live with family memebers that have severe psychological problems.

How many real world attacks have they stopped? Or is this a theoretical, unmeasurable real world?

As has been stated before, the value of information that can theoretically be gained by torture is not known in advance.
You're good with numbers Mr Rouge, and a pragmatist, can you give me an estimate of how many people need to be tortured so that you can feel like your pragmatism is working?
Maybe a ratio how many people tortured vs how many people saved from an attack.
That would do it.

The fact is, both you and I live in a country that does not use nor condone the use of torture. Aren't we luckY?
People in other countries aren't so lucky. They live in fear of having family members legally tortured and/or killed in the the name of the war against terrorism.
Terrorism exists for a reason. Maybe you could think of a reason it appears to exist in such prevalency in countries that have not ratified the UN Convention against Torture (eg, India, Pakistan, Sudan)?
I know I could.

In the real world, when torture is allowed under certain circumstances, such as extracting information, it inevitably gets used for much more than that.

But you of course you would know this because you live in the real world.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 5 December 2008 7:22:57 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
JayB you are having your self on.
no guts? firstly I am no supporter of terrorists, have had a thread banned because I think one day we must kill many of them.
But torture?
Can you not understand it is always wrong?
Always.
We are far better than our enemy's, not driven by hate and lack of real education, not following them is our best path.
If we torture will we make slaves of our women too?, telling them it is Gods will?
Would you have us turn our children into human bombs? or our mentally ill?
No torture ever.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 6 December 2008 4:32:49 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
For me the question is not whether torture should or shouldn’t ever be used, it is how to define the circumstances in which it could be used…and to have confidence in the authorities that these circumstances will be adhered to.

The scenario outlined in Polycarp’s opening post does indeed present a convincing case for the use of, or threat to use, very strong physical / psychological means of information extraction.

While it might be possible to develop tight guidelines for circumstances under which torture could be exercised, it is just impossible to ever have full confidence that governments or police or the army won’t overstep the mark sometimes. That’s the problem.

Even so, I can’t support a blanket ‘no’ to torture. The world’s just not that black and white.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 6:04:20 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
Just for Pericles.

1. Tell them that you love them.
2. Give them a nice warm bath & some nice clothes.
3. A lolly to be good.
4. A bean bag for time out.
5. A nice hot cup of tea & a lie down.
6. A nice meal.
7. Someone to massage away their fears & worries.
8. A phone call to mummy.
If no information is forthcoming
then, a quick China type trial. (march the guilty bastard in)
end if
9. Out to the nearest Piggery.
10. Find the dirtist piggy mud hole.
11. Terrorist digs own grave in piggy mud hole.
12. Gather the remains of dead pigs to put in grave with terrorist.
13. Give Terrorist one last chance to impart information.
If no information is forthcoming
then execute
End if.

"No Guts or Glory. My bet. No guts." I was refering to the sweetie brigade making a list of how they would extract information from Terrorists. Durrr...

Now how about that list sweeties. or see above.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 6 December 2008 8:10:56 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
Ludwig,

I'm surprised. You of all people I thought would have understood that you can hold and support a principle or policy without fully expecting it to be universally adopted.

I'm not alone in my policy stance. It comes from the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Australia is a signatory, as are many other countries. Unfortunately Pakistan and India have not ratified this Convention.

From the Convention:\
Article 2 Section 2
-No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture

I guess there's lots of people at the UN that don't live in the real world.

Jayb,

Congratulations, you would just be a prime candidate for war crimes, or if a state of war is not declared, murder. Quit the stupid bravado. BTW, which 'terrorist' would you be interrogating, the one who just carried out the attack, or the one that hadn't done anything yet?
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 8:43:49 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
Bugsy “But you of course you would know this because you live in the real world.”

I suggest, since I cannot convince you or the real issues of this matter you simply read Ludwig’s excellent summation.

In short, “While it might be possible to develop tight guidelines for circumstances under which torture could be exercised, it is just impossible to ever have full confidence that governments or police or the army won’t overstep the mark sometimes. That’s the problem.

Even so, I can’t support a blanket ‘no’ to torture. The world’s just not that black and white.”

When push comes to shove, “necessity” will drive us more powerfully than any “nobler desire” and that is human reality.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:22:35 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
Bugsy, I find the notion of absoluteness on this issue… with no exceptions….to be impractical and unreasonable.

For all our good intentions, and I’m with you all the way in wanting the world to be free of torture and ill-treatment of all sorts, there are circumstances where its implementation could be warranted.

Whose human rights take precedent in the case of one terrorist’s rights versus those of hundreds that could be killed if information is not extracted from that terrorist regarding future attacks?

The answer to me is clear-cut.

I mean, we can’t have a situation whereby a captured terrorist can rest assured that if he doesn’t reveal information upon request, he won’t be harmed or won’t suffer any anything worse than a reasonably comfortable long prison term. Obviously if that was the case most people of that sort wouldn’t tell us anything, would they?

So a policy of non-torture or of no strongly coercive information-extraction methods under any circumstances would be very unwise indeed.

With respect Bugsy, it seems that your principled stance is very much like us believing in world peace and therefore never being involved in a fight of any sort and abolishing our armed forces. Not very wise at all.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:25:10 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
With all due respect Ludwig, you were the person that convinced me that a policy of sustainable population just may be adopted, in fact must be adopted. The chances of that happening? In my opinion, very small in the near to medium term.

If you want to talk practicalities, it has been mentioned before: one does not know what information the subject has before he (or she) has been tortured. That uncertainty should be enough to clang alarm bells.

The same rationale of saving 'innocent lives' can be used during wartime against downed pilots targeting cities.

The policy must be universal, without exceptions. Laws must be made against the practice, all 'exceptions' must be prosecuted, then the truth of the 'balance of rights' can be ascertained, 'exceptions' will happen I understand this, but they must never be condoned without prosecution. I accept that there are many that don't believe in that in practice a zero tolerance policy on torture can be adopted, under the guise of 'being realistic' or 'pragmatic' simply serves to delay the adoption of tougher laws and helps to prevent them ever being adopted.

You of all people I thought would have understood this Ludwig.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:46:06 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
Dear Jayb,

I've been reading all the posts with interest,
and with all this heated arguing, backwards
and forwards.

I've come to the conclusion - that there really
is no easy answer. Of course none of us would
want to deliberately torture any one. That's
not the culture we've grown up in. As Col
points out - who knows what any one of us would
do - if this was our family members we were trying
to save? I too have thought about that one. And as
Col says - I honestly can't predict what my reaction
would be under those circumstances.

My preference would be towards - No Torture - no matter
what the circumstances. But that's not set in concrete.

What I can't really understand is - what does torture
really achieve? Has it worked successfully in the past?
Do people really tell the truth under duress? How
accurate is the information they give. Or will they simply
say what ever you want to hear - and the actual usefulness
of the information is negligible.

Also, do the captured terrorists really know anything?
Or are they simply cogs in a large wheel. So what would
be the point of torturing people whose knowledge is
actually non-existant?

So many questions. So few answers.

I can't give you a point by point answer to what should be
done. I'm not an expert in this field.

However, there are experts - who do know about these things,
and surely there must be a system of 'profiling,' that would
provide them with alternatives to torture, in getting
the required information - or alternatively in deciding -
that there is no information to be gotten. That the captured
terrorists in actual fact, know very little.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:55:34 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 were the person that convinced me that a policy of sustainable population just may be adopted, in fact must be adopted…”

Good to hear. Thanks Bugsy.

I agree that the use of torture would have all sorts of difficulties. But what about my point;

‘we can’t have a situation whereby a captured terrorist can rest assured that if he doesn’t reveal information upon request, he won’t be harmed or won’t suffer anything worse than a reasonably comfortable long prison term. Obviously if that was the case most people of that sort wouldn’t tell us anything, would they?’

Can you imagine the scenario of having one or more known terrorists that have confidently been linked to an attack:

We know that they have a lot of information that we desperately need, but we are powerless to make them reveal it. We know that further loss of life is very likely indeed if we don’t find out more about their operations. It would just be crackers not to put our best efforts into extracting the necessary information.

What sort of a principle would we be upholding if we were to just not really bother interrogating those we capture who were involved in atrocities with the vigour that was necessary to gain that information?

Let’s face it, with people like this, in the absence of the threat to do them real physical harm or cause them great pain, no other method is likely to work. Vital information will stay in their heads and the activities of their organisations will continue unabated.

Throughout the history of warfare, captives have been subjected to strong methods of information extraction. It just goes with the turf. We should be doing our damnedest to refine the hard methodology and make it uniform across the planet...and make all those who use it accountable. But again, it would just be quite absurd IMHO to try to ban it outright, or to uphold the principle of its complete non-use.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 10:29:14 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
The following is extracted from an article by Clive Stafford Smith, human rights lawyer evaluating whether torture achieves its goals.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/torture_2749.jsp

"Torture: an idea for our time

The renewed attempt to normalise and justify torture is ethically wrong and practically dangerous, says the leading human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith. He draws on his experience with Guantánamo prisoners to advocate a better way.

he bomb is ticking somewhere in central London. The evacuation cannot be completed in time, and hundreds or thousands may die. Scotland Yard has a man in custody. His name is Yusuf. His interrogators think he knows where the bomb is and how to defuse it, but they have read him his rights and he’s not talking. He wants his lawyer.

“Surely it’s time to ask the prime minister for permission to use a little torture to save a lot of lives”, someone exclaims.
The British prime minister has called an urgent cabinet meeting. As the second hand flows around the dial, will it be thumbs up for the thumbscrew, or will the city be condemned to certain death and destruction?

“We’re about to be lynched with our own liberties”, cries David Blunkett, once more in charge of homeland security; “our first priority has to be to protect innocent people.” With the vote for a possible fourth term around the corner, most of his cabinet colleagues voice instant agreement.

The prime minister will refer to “enhanced interrogation methods” – with a nod to the Americans’ talent for euphemism – but will make the call without hesitation: “Make him talk. Whatever it takes.” So Yusuf won’t have a nice day, but you can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

“Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases”, continues Professor Levin, “you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them.” His argument provokes three questions that many of us thought we would never be debating this side of the Dark Ages:

Cont'd
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 6 December 2008 11:09:59 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
Cont'd

....The ticking-bomb scenario is a seductive inducement to torture, but herein lies the deception: the situation simply does not exist. Many people would vote for a single turn of the screw if it would save millions. The same folk would probably vote for the death penalty if every execution swept away a guilty killer and saved a thousand innocent lives. Yet many of us oppose capital punishment because we fear the execution of the innocent, and we sincerely doubt the deterrent effect of the rope, the chair or the needle.

.....
It is sad to think that the question of whether we should use torture is one of the moral issues of our time. The real issue is not whether torture should be used, but why we are talking about it in the 21st century. Tempting though it is to toss out civil liberties each time the phantom Fear is resurrected before us, this is another false premise of the torture debate....

Bill Cowan is more realistic about the consequences of violence than his commander-in-chief:

“We need to find Muslims who will support us, who will do things for us – and if we cause civilian casualties, we lose that”, he says. “We may win tactical victories like Fallujah but they are not helping us win the larger war for the support of the Iraqis. Not one city in Iraq had drinkable water eighteen months after we arrived. We should stop using contractors and just get a decent US Army Construction Battalion in there, do a show city, indicate how it can be done.”

Decency is genuinely a good idea. When we treat others with decency, they become far less likely to wish us harm, and far more likely to tell us what they know about the extreme plans of others. Torture is indeed uncivilised; it is also unwise."

I can only conclude to Smith's report that not only is torture unreliable but violence still begets violence.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 6 December 2008 11:17:27 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, let's try another tack.

Answer yourself honestly:

-Do you personally support the UN Convention Against Torture?
-Do you think Australia should support the Convention?
-Do you think India should support the Convention?
-Should there even be a convention?

If an officer tortured a person using the reason "I had reason to believe that this person was a terrorist and had information on an imminent attack",
and it turned out that this person did not have any information- should the officer be prosecuted?

Personally, I believe all incidences of torture should be prosecuted and then the value of the information can be assessed. This is only possible if laws are passed outlawing torture without exception.

Put another way, many people would say they respect the law, laws are necessary but some laws cannot be enforced all the time.
In fact, 'in the real world' some laws possibly should not be observed under certain circumstances.

But noone says that we should not have the law. Determination of the circumstances the law was broken can be made during the prosecution.
One can fully support violators of a law to be prosecuted without exception without being labelled a hypocrite.

All would-be torturers need to know that they will be held accountable for their actions. A court can decide (not the 'rough men' themselves) whether a greater social good was served, and this may reflect in a mitigation of sentence.
But make no mistake, ALL instances of torture must be prosecuted with no exception.

This is a war FOR hearts and minds as much as against them. Yes, we may seem to fight with one hand behind our back, but there's more than one way to gather information, and there's reasonable evidence to suggest that it may actually hinder the gathering of information. After all, would someone be more or less likely to give his friend or even acquaintance away, knowing that there's a good chance that they will be tortured? More likely or less likely knowing that they won't be tortured and possibly killed a la Jayb's pig-entrail-grave technique.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 1:07:02 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
Gee's all you simple bleeding heart folk, [australians mostly I think] Typical, going on about torture,the rights and the wrongs,WHO cares!
If you can save "one" innocent life,you are justified.

The scum and cowards that perpertrate these terrorist bombings,rely on your civilised upbringings,your softness, and reliance on the so called law of civilised folk.
And you will always be the loser.
Wake up Australia!
Just put another prawn on the barbie.
DUHHHHHHHHH!!
Posted by fun-guy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:05:29 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
Hokay, seeing as we're indulging in outlandish hypotheticals, I have one for you, polycarp:

We're in a world where Islam has done what you fear and now dominates the world, however with the spread of Islamic government to previously western countries, a degree of moderacy exists in these Islamic governments. There are still horrendous regimes, but such regimes aren't practical for larger, more educated populations.

Of course, there are skirmishes between Christian rebels and the controlling Islamic forces. Some Christian sects believe that violence is a necessary evil in defeating the muslim threat, in the same way the IRA launched attacks for many years.
In this case, the Christians tell themselves they are more noble than previous muslim terrorists, because they attempt to target Islamic bastions of power rather than citizens.

In this scenario, I have some questions for you polycarp:

1) would you sanction bombings by these Christian groups?

If so, I'd like to know what you consider to be fair game. Is it purely 'military' targets? What happens when the military is integrated into religious groups? Would you sanction the bombings of mosques, if a majority of inhabitants are powerful figures?

Are only military figures valid? What of political and religious figures, such as ayatollahs or clerics?

Humanity being humanity, there are likely to be mistakes. What level of collateral damage is acceptable? What if there are deaths of christians? what about peaceful muslims?

2) Would these Christian groups be allowed to use torture, and how bad must the regime they are working under be?

For example, what if the controlling regime holds Christian prisoners and is torturing them. Are the Christian rebels warranted in torturing a captured Islamic captain in order to extract information, even if there's no 'ticking time bomb' as it were?

Genuinely interested in your thoughts here polycarp.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:26:05 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
For the record Col, I don't think you are 'heartless', quite the opposite in fact, which, while understandable, is at least as dangerous.

I think you are far too quick to abrogate civil liberties for the sake of your family's security.
I think you are far too quick to take responsibility for what the 'rough men' decide to do in your name.
I think you are far too quick to speak of what you think are 'realities' without actually pausing to stop and think about what these 'realities' actually are.

Because, as Fractelle has already shown, the 'ticking bomb' scenario or the gathering of useful information from suspects on new attacks using torture, is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. That's the reality.
But the unnecessary torture of innocent people is far too common.

All these things do not come from heartlessness, they come from someone who is so passionate about the ones they love, they would do anything in their name. While that's understandable, I don't think that's a good trait to extend to society in general.
We must watch the watchers for the sake of our own safety, and seriously that's not just a theory, that's a reality.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:26:54 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
Dear Fractelle,

Thank you so much for the information.

Once again you've given us all something
worthwhile to think about. And confirmed
what my gut instinct told me all along.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:52:43 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
I can understand why some might think torture might be considered in certain situations but for all the reasons stated already it is not the right approach both logistically and ethically.

Torture has to be considered from a societal perspective not just from the perspective of pain inflicted on an individual. In general terms torture is used primarily by oppressive governments where innocent people live in fear of being persecuted for some imagined or perceived transgreesion.

Raimond Gaita, referred to in the following link, dismisses the idea that the ends can justify the means, noting that ‘the good we achieve by unjust means is polluted by those means’.

http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2005/08/smith.html

Three very salient points made in the article include:
Torture does not work.
Torture cannot be controlled.
Torture is unethical.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 6 December 2008 8:50:37 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
Bugsy; “Do you personally support the UN Convention Against Torture?”

No. I have a problem with this:

‘No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.’

“Do you think Australia…[or]… India should support the Convention?”

Not as it is written.

“Should there even be a convention?”

YES. Absolutely. We need one that tightly defines the circumstances of when strong measures are warranted for the extraction of vital information…and not one that says ridiculous things as per the above extract. A public emergency SHOULD be the justification for strong methods of information extraction, in cases like the scenario outlined in my last post.

“If an officer tortured a person using the reason ‘I had reason to believe that this person was a terrorist and had information on an imminent attack’, and it turned out that this person did not have any information- should the officer be prosecuted?”

Not if the authorities can ascertain genuinely good intentions, in line with tightly defined criteria.

The police and army are faced with this sort of dilemma all the time. The more tightly we can define the appropriate measures in the full gamut of circumstances, the better off we will be.

THIS is what the UN convention should do, rather than saying a blanket ‘no’ to torture.

“This is a war FOR hearts and minds as much as against them”

It should be much more a case of winning the hearts and minds of those who would do us evil than to fight against their hatred… for probably a very long time to come.

Fractelle’s quoted example of a ‘show city’ seems like the sort of thing that should be done to this end. But we also have to remain strong in our resolve to deal decisively with those who inflict death and misery upon us.

The use of very strong methods of information extraction and the goal of winning the hearts and minds of our enemies are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 6 December 2008 10:42:13 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
Leaving aside for the moment the -morality of torture- and looking only at its effectiveness:

When you get down to basics torture is a subset of coercion. And there are various grades of coercion.Even the most liberal of authorities employ it; a slap on the hand for toddlers; detection for school children ; sentence loadings for ‘hate crimes’ .And society by and large seems to have judged that it is effective enough .

But when it is labeled -torture- we are asked to believe that –it absolutely cannot work– .If human nature/psychology is reasonable consistent, and if it works in the lesser cases it ought to work in the grosser cases.

Yes, I know we have press releases from various police and military spokespersons who say it does not work.But I suspect such statements are in a good part due to, coercion : I wonder how many military & police personnel - mindful of their career prospects- could come out and say yes torture works we’ve tried it.

The fact that torture keeps cropping up in various conflicts, at various times, is less a case of an innate human desire for vengeance than indication that it is likely to work when applied to some people, at least some of the time
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 7 December 2008 7:34:50 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
The original post refers only to India. From PolyCarp

"Would it surprise anyone if the "Indian government" applied 'persuasion' of an extreme nature to this individual to ferret out every bit of information he can supply?"

I don't support extreme torture, but I do support proven persuasive methods.

India & other 3rd world countries (& America) are not signaturies to the UN Convention. Whether we do or don't support torture is immaterial in this case. These countries cultures are still rooted in the Dark Ages. It's the way THEY do things. It's not the way we do things in Australia. We all recognise this.

Now I know the sweetie brigade has had no experience in "Persuasive methods" as pointed out by Foxy, but I do take it that we all can think. There seems to be a lot of it done as to why torture shouldn't be applied. Therefore you should be able to come up with some methods of illiciting information from a terrorist in some form.

OK for get the Dot Point. I'd be happy with some short explanations on extracting information.

Bugsy. "Congratulations, you would just be a prime candidate for war crimes, or if a state of war is not declared, murder."

I'd be living in India not Australia. Big difference. The terrorist would have had a fair trial & be condemed to death. Legaly. Method of excecution commiserant with the country in which the crime was commited.

"which 'terrorist' would you be interrogating, the one who just carried out the attack,"

WE are talking about the terrorist who was captured. The one that committed the attack.

"or the one that hadn't done anything yet?"

This is NOT in the equasion as given by the original question. Red herring.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 7 December 2008 8:07:16 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 Jayb, we are only going to confine ourselves to India?
Even they don't make their condemned stand dig their own grave and in pig guts.
It appears you have a low opinion on Indians if you believe that this method of execution is commiserant with their culture.

The 'red herring' you labelled is in fact not. Who is more likely to have information on future attacks, a terrorist who hasn't carried out one yet, or a 21yr old that just got captured during a suicde mission.
I'm sure many authorities would want to interrogate people before the attack. And we aren't just talking about this singular individual, we are talking about the policy of dealing with terrorists generally, using him as an example.

And America IS a signatory to the convention, as are many 3rd world countries. They just work on the definition of torture.
The signatories and the USA's understandings and definitions are here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm

From the UN page:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

So in fact, most techniques that you would think of as torture are in fact, torture.
the word torture appears in the thread title and in the question, 'persuasion methods' is a far broader term that doesn't necessarily involve torture. America agrees.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 7 December 2008 9:19:48 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
Why not simply put everyone into prison now and only release them when they can prove they've done nothing wrong. (Torture permitted).

It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 7 December 2008 10:23:31 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
Even they don't make their condemned stand dig their own grave and in pig guts.

This was meant to be an example of a "persuasive Method." Given that Muslims abhore pigs. But then you knew that & put a different slant on it.

It appears you have a low opinion on Indians.

Yes & no. I have a number of indian friends of all casts. They're glad they live in Australia & agree that India, as a Nation, lives in the Dark Ages. Their thoughts, not mine.

The 'red herring' you labelled is in fact not. Who is more likely to have information on future attacks, a terrorist who hasn't carried out one yet, or a 21yr old that just got captured during a suicide mission?

The original question doesn't mention "potential attackers"

"Would it surprise anyone if the Indian government applied 'persuasion' of an extreme nature to this individual to ferret out every bit of information "he" can supply?"

"Given that the attack was of such a horrific then surely it would be understandable if the Indian authorities used every means at their disposal to force "this" person to tell all."

I'm sure many authorities would want to interrogate people before the attack. And we aren't just talking about this singular individual, we are talking about the policy of dealing with terrorists generally, using him as an example.

And America IS a signatory to the convention, as are many 3rd world countries. They just work on the definition of torture.

And America IS a signatory to the convention,

Oh yes, but they ARE immune from prosecution.


'persuasion methods' is a far broader term that doesn't necessarily involve torture."

Good. Now, as I have been asking, Please forward to the discussion some of the soft "Persuasive Methods" that you think could be used. As opposed to hard "Torture Methods." Is that so hard? or are you just ignoring the Question because you don't have a clue. You see, all mouth when it comes to being critical but no help when it comes to presenting a solution. Typical Sweetie PC.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 7 December 2008 10:58:51 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
A major component of the use of torture is the effect, immediate and ongoing, that it has on the participants - the people ordered or encouraged to torture other people. And not in life or death ticking bomb scenarios either.

Think on the following:

"Abuse and torture of prisoners was much more widely spread than just Abu Ghraib. The guilt and shame of soldiers who took part continues to haunt Americans. "The one who scars another's soul, can come away wounded as well." American RadioWorks investigates."

And listen to the audio: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2435398.htm

Torture injures far more than the unfortunate prisoner (who may may not be guilty) it exacts a toll that ripples out into all our communities.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 7 December 2008 12:41:03 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
"A major component of the use of torture is the effect, immediate and ongoing, that it has on the participants."

I disagree. Nice Westernised senterments but. These are 3rd world countries. Torture is a way of life for them. It's normal, for them so it doesn't have any effect on the perpetrator at all.

"The guilt and shame of soldiers who took part continues to haunt Americans."

I doubt whether the participants have any regrets other than they got caught. A lot of Americans laughed at the photos & most of those that didn't feigned indignation because tha's the PC thing to do. Only A few would have been genuine in their disgusted.

Fractelle can YOU give us a solution to how to extract information, in a nice friendly way, from the captured terrorist attacker? Any thoughts on the proceedure will do.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 7 December 2008 1:57:20 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. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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