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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.