"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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

How many "evil people" should be sacrificed to demonstrate the assumption?