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.

"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

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.

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?

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.

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.