"In this article, Professor Bagaric did not condone the use of torture in any situation, but only where 'the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person'".

Has any such situation ever occurred? How is it possible to know that torture is "the only means"?

"Of course, Australia has not been immune to civil libertarians drumming up anti-torture rhetoric." The concept of basic human rights seems to have gone the way of energy conservation in the US -"quaint", according to Donald Rumsfeld.

Information obtained via torture has NEVER been considered useful as a means of obtaining information. As a means of social control however it is invaluable. Porter Goss, head of the CIA, would be among the first to tell you this. Perhaps the author knows something no-one else does.

Torture is just dandy as long as it's somebody else getting tortured. Our capacity to rationalise inhuman behavour staggers the mind.

Ain't some people weird?

James must be commended for his incisiveness, steel-like logic, and fearlessness, in mounting his case for torture in emergency situations.

He must also be congratulated for exposing all the intellectual pretenders for what they really are. And who poured their venom upon professor Bagaric, who had the moral and intellectual strength to stand up against the torrent of their bitter winds.

KOTZABASIS

Go to my BLOG: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

Unfortunately for the Victorian Police Service, using this new defence would be somewhat perilous. Australia is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1989] ATS 21[ http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/21.html ]; and has enacted valid legislation (Crimes Torture Act 1988 (Cth)[ http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/cth/consol%5fact/ca1988192/sch1.html ]) in order to give effect to Australia’s international obligations (Shahrooie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 996 (19 September 2003); R v Chen & Others [2002] NSWCCA 174 (11 June 2002)).

Therefore, any attempt by Victoria to legislate to allow torture for any purpose, regardless of whether the situation was a ‘ticking time bomb’ situation, is to suggest that the States may safely ignore valid Commonwealth legislation. This is not in fact the case, the States are bound by Commonwealth laws, which are valid due to their enlivening an international treaty (s.51(xxix); Tasmanian Dams Case; Mabo (No 2)). Any attempt by a subordinate State Parliament, to override valid Federal legislation would be demonstrably inconsistent with Federal legislation (s.109), and moreover inconsistent with that basic principle of Constitutional interpretation, that ‘a stream cannot flow above its source’ (Communist Party Case, per Fullagar J).

In addition, any use of such a defence would be just that. Thanks to Australia being a signatory to the aforementioned Convention, and the fact that the executive may not authorize anything prima facie illegal (A v Hayden), neither the executive, nor a court could authorize murder, grievous/bodily harm, or assault (Plenty v Dillon; Coco v R). Therefore any such defence would be exculpatory in nature, and would not authorize any refusal to proffer charges against the police officer involved. The effect of which is that despite the Victorian Parliament purportedly authorizing such a defence, the extent of the defence of ‘necessity’ may not be widened beyond what may be achieved at common law.

here I am!! Neither hypocritical or ignorant inspite of James' assertions.

And I thank him for alerting me to this piece of legislation - I read the explanatory memorandum to the ammendment only.

But first:I dont consider criticism of Bagarics "superb" piece was gross, shabby or shameful by the - and here we go again - latte' sipping left. What is it with you guys and beverages?

I disagree with the lecturer at law in his anal isis of the ammendment: it may at best offer a defence if torture resulted in the death of the hapless punter in the torturers grasp if a whole bunch of conditions are met - even then I think he's wrong. However it refers to an act or an ommission where as torture might mean and usually does a series of deeds

Any act considered a defence has to be found in a belief that it is based on a fear of death or injury of themsleves or others - and that is at best a subjective assesment and open to varied interpretation. So was there a clear and present danger? - was it foreseeable the would be torturer had a reasonable chance of being wrong.

This guy is keen to open the door to the torture chamber but I do not think this act offers that opportunity

I think James' take might also be challenged on the nature of the act preceeding death; was it a defensive act or was it a series of meanand nasty deeds culminating in death?.

If James is right - and I think he aint - if read as according to James, the section is at best a defence of murder culminating in death but not of torture per se.

So the defence applies only if you kill the bugger - or maybe bugger the would be killer if that is your preferred torturing technique.

If James is serious in his position - and I figure he his - we need to ask the legislators was this their intention - And I will do just that.

Meanwhile, the penalties for torturing animals in Oz are rapidly increasing, as they should. Wasn't it an extreme lack of intelligence that got us into the Middle East mess in the first place ?

If someone was sticking pins under my nails I would surely own up to anything. After 9/11 many people in the USA were rounded up and taken away for interrogation, based often on them being reported for 'acting suspiciously'. Some were reported by workmates or neighbours purely because they looked a bit shifty. Many were away from families for 12 mths with no legal recourse, tortured and beaten. There were innocent.
The prisioners in Iraq tortured by the US army were pulled off the streets with no proof of being involved in terrorism,. Is this what people want? That hysteria will point fingers and many innocents, but torturing them is ok as they 'might' be a bad guy. This is not latte time, this is stepping back from the situation and seeing that torture will not produce anything other than a forced confession.
Rather than scoffing at those who do not agree with torture, look at your own mindset and see the hysteria and rhetoric. I certainly would not like to see people being pulled off the streets, based on some idiot dobbing me in as a terrorist purely for their own reasons, and without sufficient legal reason. Too late if the torture killed me before my innocence was discovered.

Where are all the torture critics now?

I'm still here protesting everytime I see Alexander Downer on TV. If this isn't torture I don't know what is.

I'll continue to protest and oppose the use of torture whilst ever I have recollections of Auszwich,Abu Ghraib;Guantanamo;Nuremberg; Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush talking of vetoing American Congress on the use of torture.
I am mindful of the fact that the US had knowledge of a possible terror attack well before the passenger planes flew into the twin towers and the Pentagon but they did not respond to prevent the tragedies. Why then would they need torture when they had the 'intelligence' in their possession ?
They are using torture in Iraq now and in secret prisons around the world...arresting innocent people and 'interrogating' them to exact information about so called 'insurgents' activities...keeping them away from the Red Cross....It is not succeeding in stopping the war.
Here are two relative quotes that clearly indicate we are not learning from the past.

Our men . . . have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of 10 up.... Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to "make them talk," and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an
hour later. . . stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses.": Philadelphia Ledger newspaper in 1901, from its Manila [Philippines] correspondent during the US war with Spain for the control of the Philippines

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience.therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." - Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950

As regards Iraqi insurgents, there seems more and more proof they come mostly from Saddam's more than three hundred thousand troops which though poorly equipped militarily, apparently had the nounce not to surrender but to carry on the battle as underground forces ready to give their lives as suicide bombers.

However, it is so interesting that the Sunnis being formerly more Western orientated than the Shias back in the 1980s, could suddenly turnabout and surrender, especially the officer class, if offered positions in the new Iraqi military.

However, the very fact that Condoleeza Rice will finish up with a sort of dog's breakfast as regards security forces, could mean a good excuse for the US military to stay on in force, using the old colonial ruse to hang about like the Brits in India and play divide and rule keeping natural enemies apart.

There is also the problem of big Iran next door being too friendly with the Iraqi Shias. And if anyone believes that most of the oil profits will go to the Iraqis, as Condy Rice has probably already promised must surely be having pipe dreams. Far better to pump Dick Cheney, or Exxon Corporation, or BP, and never believe that Iraq will be allowed to go back on the Euro as she was with Saddam. As well as with a lot of other things, that a land once again given its freedom should be allowed to make its own choice about.

There are two issues here: is torture ever morally permissible (eg, to save lives, as in scenarios discussed here and elsewhere); and, is torture likely enough to extract useful information to make its use worthwhile?

Others may disagree, but my answer to the first question is "no". The deliberate infliction of severe pain and suffering on a human being is so dehumanising and degrading a process, and so dangerous to those doing the torturing, that I don't believe it can ever be justified. Torture is the stock-in-trade of wholly repugnant regimes - Nazi Germany, the various communist dictatorships, rightwing military regimes around the world, Saddam's Iraq. It is, as one poster notes, primarily a means of intimidation and control. And there is no end to the horror it can generate once unleashed.

The second question is strictly practical. Our latter-day torture advocates speak of it being used only in certain highly critical situations (that's how it would begin, anyway). But, sufficiently tortured, most people will sign anything and admit to anything. You may gain a conviction this way, but intelligence to head off a terrorist strike in a time-critical situation is very unlikely. All the tortured suspect need do - assuming he or she can't hold out till the deadline (there are cases where people have been tortured to death without talking) - is give false information to buy enough time for the presumed strike to occur. Game over.

A little story. Fabian von Schlabrendorff was in the July 1944 plot to kill Hitler. He was arrested and lavishly tortured by the Gestapo, but stopped the torture by making "an entirely harmless form of confession" which incriminated no-one not already caught. Bizarrrely, when put on trial he was acquitted on the grounds that torture had been used against him: the Nazis did not actually legalise torture, as today's advocates would, they just used it. The Gestapo did not release him, though: he was told that in recognition of his acquittal he would be shot, not hanged. In the chaos at the war's end, he actually survived to tell his tale.

Yay back to the middle ages we go!

Hooray political percecution!

First they came for the Muslims, I did not fight, for I was not a Muslim. Then they came for the Communists, I did not fight, for I was not a Communist. When they came for me, there was no one left to fight.

All through the classical period, all through the middle ages & the renaissance torture was used to gain information. It was finally abandoned because basicly if someone is torturing you then you'll say anything, admit to anything, to make them stop. So the worth of any information gained is zero. Need proof? Here's a quote from the Archbishop of paris at the time of the inquisition.
"...and the type of questioning that is used would make Saint Peter himself admit to whatever the questioner chooses. Then having gained such a confession the torturers feel justified in torturing their prisoner even further in order for him to name his accomplaces. They are then brought in & the whole perfidious procedure begins again. Can we not see that such "questioning" produces only false confessions from the accused to escape pain & damnation for those who inflict such suffering upon others?"
What a terrific thing it is to become so civilised that we would consider going back to the days when certain humans had no rights.
But what if people's lives hang in the balance you ask? I answer that 1) there are other methods beside torture [sodium pentathol springs to mind] 2) we see ourselves as justified in overthrowing sadam's reign because he tortured people. How then are we different if we do the same?

To suggest that torture is permissable to save innocent lives would suggest that in time of war it is permissable to torture Australian prisoners of war who may have information of pending bombing air raids. The enemy whoever it may be could torture aussie prisoners of war to save their innocent civilians from the pending air raid.

Quite clearly we do not want to expose our soldiers to the risk terrible pain and lifelong scarring and hence should prosecute all those that commit war crimes. The tragedy is that to fight for freedom and democracy it appears that we are willing to remove the very individual rights and liberties we hold dear. If we go down that path then the terrorists have won, because we have become them.

I supported the first Iraqi war but vehemently oppose the second. All that will be achieved is create a link between Al Qaeda and dissident Iraqis that never existed and would never have existed.

Furthermore all that will be achieved will be a shiite regime working closely with Iran. We will see a significant balance of power shift in the middle east that is hostile to the west. Whereas before they were divided and fighting each other both Iraq and Iran will become closer.

I think that terrorizing terrorists by torturing them sounds like poetic justice to me.

The main arguments against torture appear to be based upon the moral and the practical.

Some people say that torture is uncivilized. But I say that warfare is fundamentally uncivilized behaviour anyway. If if it is OK for us to slaughter hundreds of thousands of men with napalm and white phosphorous like civilized human beings, how is it not OK to torture a few Al Qaida low lifes to save a school full of our children from being raped and murdered?

Then there is the usual “human rights” argument which can easily be countered. It is a fundamental human right for ordinary human beings to go about their business without being blown to pieces by some religious fanatic who hates anybody that does not bow down to his God. The rights to life and liberty of men women and children, trumps the rights of terrorists to be treated with kid gloves when they are caught.

On a practical level, some say that torture does not work. But if it has always been a failure, then it would have been discarded long ago as an effective interrogation method. Obviously, it does have some merit.

I think that those who oppose the use of torture in The War on Terror are making two fundamental mistakes which have led to military catastrophe before. The first is “The Pearl Harbour Sydrome” whereby they simply can not imagine that a lethal and devastating attack upon their nation that could involve their own family will ever eventuate. It is easy to affect a morally superior posture when you think that the issue will never affect you personally.

The second is that they are unable to comprehend that this is a different kind of war where the enemy has the initiative and he is making the rules himself. If acting “civilized” is the only imperative, then we are courting disaster. The Lusitania was sunk because it’s captain insisted that no warship from a civilized country would fire upon an unarmed civilian passenger liner.

RedNeck
I am not fooled by the jargon that the Americans are using to describe the war in Iraq and the response from Fundamentalist Muslims.

To describe the military opposition in Iraq as 'insurgents' does not recognise that most of the opposition is a home grown Guerilla movement. The use of suicide bombers is an extension of the Guerilla tactics that displays the extent of their beliefs which is no different to Christians thrown to the lions, going to their deaths singing praise to their God.
And the killing of innocent people in 'Terrorist attacks'is perhaps no different to the Americans using white phosphorous in Fallujah killing innocent women , children and other non-combatants.
Do you really believe the Bush Administration is in Iraq to bring Freedom and Democracy ? Has George Bush been reading Mao's little Red Book ? Does he now believe that Democracy springs from the barrel of a Gun ?
The Americans have secret torture prisons all over the world in countries where Torture is practiced .
This quotation from Robert Parry, an investigative journalist and Author pretty much sums up the American way............

" ... the United States, for generations, has sustained two parallel but opposed states of mind about military atrocities and human rights: one of U.S. benevolence, generally held by the public, and the other of
ends-justify-the-means brutality sponsored by counterinsurgency specialists...... "

In a civilized society, Torture is not on.

There is a general view that 'suspected terrorists" are really bad people who, of course, are terrorists.
What if a suspect just happened to have the wrong look on his face, does he deserve to be tortured 'just in case'? This is what has happened in GT, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places. The people taken away from New York were finally returned after being tortured or deported, even though they had no contact with any terrorist group, and purely did not fit the right image of pst 9/11 New York.
Villiagers in Iraq and Afghanistan have had horrendous things done to them, their families, and were forced to watch horrors being acted upon those they love, just to extract information. Many of these people knew nothing, and yet were guilty in the eyes of the Military, purely for living there. Of course, they will give names, anything to get out of the situation,. The names given were then the next lot to be tortured...... and the cycle continues. There are tried and tested ways of gaining information, and torture has proven itself to be a weak process.
One main reason that GWB gave for going into Iraq was the torture chambers of Saddam, these have only been replaced with USA run chambers.

As I said earlier, I would own up to anything if it meant I would be free of the pain of torture,. Not many are that brave, and I am no hero.

On the separate subject of Iraq, I believe that President Bush sincerely wishes to the Muslim world into the 20th century by grabbing a Muslim nation run by the usual murderous dictator and forcibly making them adopt democracy. Hopefully, this might finally get the democratic ball rolling in all Muslim nations. However much I salute President Bush for his initiative, I am personally opposed to the War in Iraq. I regard all Muslims as my enemies and I personally hope that their societies remain the stuffed up sheet fights they are. There is no profit in bringing successful civilisation to barbarians who do not want it anyway. And nobody has ever thanked the Americans for saving them. The French least of all.

Quite frankly, Muslims are not worth saving.

The fact that Americans are torturing Muslim terrorists is a good thing. The usual yardstick in the treatment of prisoners is a quid pro quo. That is, if you treat our captives OK then we will do the same with your boys when we catch them. But when dealing with men who invade schools and rape little girls, or who unashamedly declare that they regard all civilians are legitimate military targets, and even saw the living heads off journalists, then ferk ‘em. Get out the oxy acetylene bottles, boys.

According to one newspaper article which I read, beating the crap out of these lowlifes has already prevented a “second wave” of 9/11 attacks on the USA. If this report was true, then it is an endorsement of torture as far as I am concerned.

I hate to sound like a bad loser, but personally, if some Muslim terrorist succeeds in blowing me through the roof of my train carriage this morning, then as far as I am concerned, the US can torture the slime bag who did it to death with my blessings.

mmm I'm reminded of a saying "Treat others as you would like to be treated".
James it's hard to have the high moral ground when your standing in the gutter. Why don’t you just execute people who look like they might be up to something.

the difference between what the law is and says, and what people think the law is and says, is an alarming gap of social and political awareness.

no more, or less, than the gap between public morality and private reality i guess.

I feel like I stumbled onto a time portal. Here we are in Nazi World 1939 - rationalising away all humane senses. You Christians are a sick lot.

Redneck you are excellent terrorist material luv'.

Is that the best that you can do, Rancidus?

I would like to make an observation here. It was the gun buyback under John Howard that finally got me political. I got so fed up up trendies telling lies and petending that their twisted views were the epitome of intellectual enlightenment, that I finally got off my butt and started shooting back.

On this and every other debating thread that I have encountered, people like you Rancidus are as weak as water. You are all bluff and bluster. You seem to rely upon your conviction that people like yourself are in every way smarter than everybody else, and morally beyond reproach as well. Added to this attitude, is the conviction that your opponents are all dummies who a superior person like yourself need never fear.

But every time I get people like you by the throat, it is child's play to show you up for the fools that you all are. Most of you repeat the same arguments and slogans that have been instilled by your peers, parrot like in your heads. You seem to be unable to think for yourselves or even understand cause to consequence. And when people like me, Arjay or David Boaz point out the contradictions in your dated and well trodden arguments, it leaves you utterly helpless.

The usual response from the social regressives like yourself when cornered, is to either stand upon your dignity and pretend that you are oh, so utterly superior that you need not bother to give rational explanations for your views, or to simply say "I will not debate with you anymore."

Your feeble response is indicative of the latter.

I too might have espoused similar sentiments to you when I was young myself. But I finally figured out that I was being lied to, and when that happened, it began the process of switching on my critical analysis circuits. I hope that you can switch on your scepticism circuits yourself, some day, and then examine the dated ideologies of your fashionable contemporaries in the light of your new skills.

So the bad man took your gun away Redneck. By the sound of you it was probably quite justified.
I had to surrender a .22 browning 10 shot semi-automatic break down rifle I had for 50 years and I am still dirty on Howard and his usual knee jerk reaction to prevent such tragedies as the Port Arthur massacre. But I dont propose we adopt Torture of the perpetrator as some primitive act of retaliation or revenge.
Since our culture is developing much like North America I accepted that taking guns out of the community was not a bad thing given the horrific statistics of Gun violence throughout American society from Kindergarten onward.
In this modern age we are attempting to become more civilized not regress to Nazi Germany or Abu Ghraib despite the ravings of Rumsfeld and Cheney who want Bush to veto Congress restrictions on torture.
I think your ego has got in the way of logical discussion. You really havent contributed much to the debate on torture. You have spent most of your time vilifying those who disagree with your extremism. You indicated you hate Muslims; do you hate jews.refugees and Aborigines too?
Whatever you are, remember, torture is not acceptable in a civilised society.I recall one post pointed out, to embrace torture requires you to descend to the same level as a torturer.

Is that the best you can do, Redneck (I spell nice - even with a broken bum and head cold:) ?
I would like to make an observation here. It was the rise of fascism and racism that finally got me political. I got so fed up with politically-incorrect trendies telling lies and pretending that their twisted views were the epitome of intellectual enlightenment, that I finally got off my lover and started offering up my opinions.

On this and every other debating thread that I have encountered, people like you Redneck are as weak as water. You are all bluff and bluster. You seem to rely upon your conviction that people like yourself are in every way smarter than everybody else, and morally beyond reproach as well. Added to this attitude, is the conviction that your opponents are all dummies who a supposedly superior person like yourself need only bellow insults at.
And every time I get people like you cornered with a one-liner, well – that is how easy it is to show up the racism and irrationality of your opinions. Most of your mob repeat the same arguments and slogans that have been instilled by your peers, parrot like in your heads. You are unable to think for yourselves or even understand cause to consequence. And when people like me, and other like-minded bloggers, point out the contradictions in your dated and well trodden arguments, it leaves you utterly helpless. (Mostly unchanged para to, indeed, show how far up yourself you are Redneck - oh great Superior one).

Redneck: The usual response from the social regressives like yourself when cornered is to either stand upon your dignity or pretend that you are oh so utterly superior that you prattle on and on about the same racist, anti-other –culture diatribe with no real rational explanations for your views, or to simply say others’ ideas are empty, parroting, stupid, idiotic, etc.

Your drawn out personal attacks (which I am shooting right back at ya’ in a nicer way) are indicative of the latter .
I have never espoused similar sentiments anywhere to yours when I was young. A child knows that your attitudes to other folks of difference is damn well offensive and plain wrong. I also knew and figured out that I was being misled, and when that happened, I began reading widely so that I had the information to analyse correctly. I hope some day that you can read beyond your redneck propaganda and then you to will be able to examine the dated attitudes of your fashionable contemporaries of the radical right in the light of your reduced ignorance.

There ya’ go Redneck happy now that I am parroting Redneck stuff.
I don’t belong to, or align myself with any political mob – do you, Redneck, and who are they?
The idea of torture, which is terrorism on a personal level, I think, is plain wrong. This opinion has nothing to do with intellect or any of that stuff that annoys you so much. There are some things in life that require, in my opinion, zero tolerance and torture/terrorism is one of them. Now, if you are this intellectual giant that you suggest, then you wouldn’t need me to tell you why I don’t go into long-winded debates on deliberate cruelty – not that you actually addressed the topic much anyway. From your blogs, I still have to say that you have the heart of a terrorist.
Redneck, you still have a funny way of validating my opinions. especially the one that you and I are evidence of the inevitability of multi-culturalism.

First point, Mr Maracas, I have not said that I hate anybody. Grossly exaggerating other people’s posts can be indicative of a person who is not prepared to debate in good faith.

Second point. How you claim that I have not “contributed much to the debate on torture” is beyond me. I have contributed two submissions entirely on the subject of torture which beats your one post.

Third point. You are correct in saying that Australia is “developing much like America.” The USA has too many crime prone and welfare dependent minorities stuffing the place up. The French, British and Dutch are learning that lesson the hard way right now. Why you want Australia to emulate obvious failure is something you can explain.

Fourth point. What exactly is “civilised behaviour”? Warships sinking unarmed civilian passenger liners like the Lusitania, or Zeppelins, dropping bombs on cities, was once considered uncivilised behaviour. But by WW2 it was common behaviour with all the combatants. It all depends upon who your enemy is, the degree of threat, opportunity for retaliation, and what standard of behaviour your enemy exhibits themselves.

Japan refused to ratify the Geneva Convention in WW2 and their treatment of captured allied civilians and captured allied POW’s was absolutely appalling. Not surprisingly, allied soldiers routinely executed wounded and helpless Jap soldiers as a matter of course. We bombed their cities flat using phosphorous and nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of mostly women and children. We machined gunned Jap survivors in the water who had escaped from sinking ships. And it did not worry us one bit.

The West knows how to slaughter it’s enemies like civilised people.

As for becoming as bad as our enemies. If we can stop a religious fanatic from flying over London or Paris with a crop duster full of anthrax, then I can live with that. I come from a Housing Commission area, Mr Maracas. I am used to being called a trailer trash redneck lowlife anyway.

Redneck - you're ironic and don't even know it. Mostly your posts are predictable, vitriolic and lacking in thought.

However, I had a good laugh at your words:

"The West knows how to slaughter it’s enemies like civilised people."

Do you even get it?

Here's is a test: and one for those who so regualry seem to apply their own peculiar rules of exchange on other posters and tiresomely brag about peoples failure to respond to their well made points or lay some absurd claim to "winning " these exchanges ( and u know who u are, u little rapskallions )

Find a topic that might interest you or one that gets your blood boiling - say immigration - and wait until about 25 or so posts are up; then go very quickly to the last post with out reading those preceding it - and read them from the last to the first.

Some things will become evident; the relevance of the post to the content of the article is inversely proportional to its place relative to the date published. And the focus of the post becomes decreasingly ego centric the close you move back up the page - as the "debate" develops the focus centres on the contributors not on the issue. And some peole will inject their deep seated and wacky ideas into any discussion as it grows. ..." and on the topic of stamp collecting let me tell about the need to kill homosexuals" we are a funny lot indeed

These pages are a gold mine for a sociologist - or forensic psychaitrist.

topic drift is very common. it was around long before forums like this. i find it amusing, occasionally exasperating, but always a reminder of who is most likely to post in a place like this, and their motivation/s for doing so.

the comments might be interesting to a sociologist, but most offer little value regarding the original article. i look out for the occasional gem.

To Sneaky Peter.

When I first began contibuting to this thread (how you must curse that day) my interpretation of the posts was that the entire web site was a mutual admiration society for chardonnay suckers.

Any trendy topic usually opened with the social regressives congratulating each others tolerance and humanity while openly implying that anyone who submitted heretical views which opposed the prevailing orthodoxy was a neanderthal knuckle dragger. Interestingly, opposing views did not begin until at least the first dozen or so posts. (except Leigh, who is always quick off the mark)

This indirectly reinforced my view that right wing people tend to be more reflective than trendy lefties. I admit that such an observation might be considered very subjective.

Interestingly, this phenomonon has now reversed. Patriotic Right wing people now seem to be on the attack and they are opening debate while the wretched Australia haters are waiting for a dozen posts or so before they barge in with their peculiar views.

Naturally, this could mean that patriotic people have much more intitiative than wet, wimpish trendoids. That could also be a subjective interpretation, but I am sure I am right.

To Scout

Of course I am aware of the irony in the statement and I put it in for a laugh. The gloss of human civilisation is a very thin veneer.

CEKNERD
You've stopped taking your medication AGAIN....

No redders I do not curse the day you kicked off with your posts on this or any other thread - you like me are just part of the mix.

i was less concerned with the balance, left versus right - aussie hater versus patriot - than the move away from the initial proposition put by the author, the development of weired tangential arguments and the propensity for the odd souls to inject some out of left feild notion into all and every debate because some thing has bugged them for the longest time.

I do not for a minute agree with your assumption that any one group is more reflective than another.

But I do not recolllect any one other than you or perhaps Col Rouge trumpeting that you guys had the "trendies on the run" - a base less claim. That in itself is a tell tale characteristic of a rather one dimensional veiw on things - Marcuse wrote a nice book on that subject a long time ago - the debate is the thing - victory is fleeting in these kinds of things - but the ideas never go away.

I do agree that there is a bit too much pissing in one anothers pocketes but that goes for both sides of the political divide.

Even the sneekmeister has been on the end of congratulations from time to time - but then again what else should I expect!

Yours in outrageous humility Sneeky.

Maelorin: If it is gems you seek follow the sneek; soon you will have enuff to open a jewellery store.

Yours in over whelming, on going and unabashed humility Sneekeepete;

How's things Redders?

I"n other words, what Bagaric was proposing is already a feature of the criminal justice system, so long as the use of torture is reasonable and proportionate." Well this really does not say much. I suspect that no Australian judge would consider any of the sorts of 'torture' described in these articles to be "reasonable and proportionate". Bagaric's views seem to be based on a fairly simplistic utilitarian analysis.

l suppose they could just stick to their telephone book interrogations and getting their crim mates to do their corrupt interrogation work.