Forum menu
I'm no fan of his, but George W says that "Waterboarding saved London from attacks". It's a big "if" but if it did, is it OK to torture if the cause is worthwhile?
If you asked me if I was in favour of torture, I'd say "no" pretty instantly, but this has made me think - if it would have prevented 9/11....
(Edit: BTW, I know that the waterboarding incident was after 9/11, it's just a hypothetical question)
If it could have prevented the use of wood chip wall paper in the sixties and seventies I think I would have to say yes.
Otherwise, probably not. It tends to get unreliable evidence as people will say what they think you want to hear rather than necessarily the truth. Drug induced interrogation is where it is at (apparently)
On some occasions yes and others definately not. Its objective. NIMBYs would like to think that the worlds not that bad a place but in reality conflict brings out the worst in us.
It's not acceptable in a civilised society and it is unreliable anyway.
We must rely on intelligence & not enraging these people with dubious foreign policies and unquestioned support of the US.
The problem is that the public are told things like "waterboarding saved lives" but do we actually get the evidence presented to us? And by this I would need to be able to see the accused's evidence and the follow up trail that lead to arrests/actions that prevented actual attacks or broke up cells. It is unlikely that evidence of this level will ever be presented.
I don't like the idea of torture/extreme interrogation but admit that it could make a difference in theory. And I suspect that the majority is used as a revenge/humiliation tool as much as an intelligence gathering tool.
I wouldn't believe George Bush if he told me my arse was on fire I I could actually feel some excessive posterior warming. How much "waterboarding" was used to provide the evidence of the WMDs that were never there?
2wheels, we may live in a civilised society thank god but, we we dont live in a civilised world.
No it's never justified - it demonstrates failure.
Would be interested to know whether the US/UK gov would classify their accepted methods as 'torture' if they were done to US/UK military by a foreign power?
No
yes, when fighting terrorism like it was used for.
I wouldn't believe George Bush if he told me my arse was on fire
Classic! Quote of the month if you ask me 😆
The Iraq war wasn't about fighting terrorism though Ton
who mentioned the iraq war...........
TJ, I wish my world was as black and white as yours. I do admire your strength of character though.
No, these people aren't convicted of any crime at the time are they?
So they are innocent people...being tortured.
Would it be OK if it was you...your son...etc?
two wrongs don't make a right and any information gained is unreliable anyway.
Thats two good reasons for not using it. Moral and pragmatic
It kinda was for the US, the WMD argument was much more strongly put this side of the pond, in the USA it was an afterthought on the reasons to got to war list. Hence the allegations of "sexing up" the evidence.
apparently we went to war on Saddam becuase of info received under torture regarding WMD. If they hadn't tortured someone for this false info then we might be living quite in a different world. If you tortured me enough I'd probably confess to whatever heinious crime you accused me of.
apparently we went to war on Saddam becuase of info received under torture regarding WMD. If they hadn't tortured someone for this false info then we might be living quite in a different world. If you tortured me enough I'd probably confess to whatever heinious crime you accused me of.
I've just watched a prog on Discovery which showed how the british would bury nazi airmen shot down over britain with full military honours.
I think it is a reflection on society how we treat our prisoners/crimiinals/enemies etc.
That's why I believe torture/capital punishment/abuse is totally unacceptable.
We need to look at the causes of terrorism, why do they want to kill us?
Has our actions from imperial expantion to suez to Iraq to Afganistan brought any good to the world or just radicalised generations of hopeless, desperate people?
People will tell you anything during torture and as said, it's usually used as a humiliation, punishment or deterrent.
no - I fail to see the logic of fighting to defend a way of life we call 'civilised' if to do so means we have to treat other people like animals.
I'm well aware that if my wife had died on 7/7, I might have a significantly different perspective, but I'm not sure it's ever good for us as people to let powerful impulses such as revenge shape our response to situations.
I also think that, before anyone says "yes", they should read some of the survivor accounts of being tortured - it makes me cringe to think about treating people that way, and what it does to their psyche disturbs me more than the accounts of the physical pain. Mind you, I'm a big softie - what disturbed me most in Saving Private Ryan was the scene where the German prisoner was begging for his life.
Never acceptable.
Ok so lets get this straight, it's ok for us to torture as we're the good guys but if the other side does it then it's wrong?
If someone in your family/regiment/close circle of friends was tortured most people (me included) would want revenge. There's probably a lot of people out there wanting revenge right now.
God tells me that it is not acceptable.
but I'm not sure it's ever good for us as people to let powerful impulses such as revenge shape our response to situations.
Intersting you mention revenge, I've just read a (long but really good) article which argues (among other things) that most modern suicide bombings are acts of revenge rather than religion.
[url= http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/the-politics-behind-misunderstanding-islam/comment-page-2/#comment-35883 ]The Politics Behind Misunderstanding Islam[/url]
For Muslims worldwide, however, GWOT itself continues. The United States has orchestrated a surge in Afghanistan. The CIA’s drone war in the ****stani borderlands has escalated rapidly. U.S. Special Forces now operate in 75 countries, at least 15 more than during the Bush years. Meanwhile, Guantanamo remains open, the United States still practices extraordinary rendition, and assassination remains an active part of Washington’s toolbox.The civilians killed in these overseas contingency operations are predominantly Muslim. The people seized and interrogated are mostly Muslim. The buildings destroyed are largely Muslim-owned. As a result, the rhetoric of “crusaders and imperialists” used by al-Qaeda falls on receptive ears. Despite his Cairo speech, the favorability rating of the United States in the Muslim world, already grim enough, has slid even further since Obama took office — in Egypt, from 41% in 2009 to 31% percent now; in Turkey, from 33% to 23%; and in ****stan, from 13% to 8%.
The U.S. wars, occupations, raids, and repeated air strikes have produced much of this disaffection and, as political scientist Robert Pape has consistently argued, most of the suicide bombings and other attacks against Western troops and targets as well. This is revenge, not religion, talking — just as it was for Americans after September 11, 2001. As commentator M. Junaid Levesque-Alam astutely pointed out, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”
I'm no expert but I believe that is how most people are enlisted to any "terrorist" organisation - e.g. You live in a remote impoverished area, are poor and have little worldly knowledge. Your wife and kids are killed by a misplaced bomb / a n other circumstance. You are shown a way of "revenge" against the perpetrators of murder against your family. You don't have much to lose. What do you do????
Never. It doesn't produce reliable evidence, and it's a sure fire way of making sure you have a ready supply of would be terrorists. We pretty much proved that being more of a tosser than the other side wasn't a winning strategy in Northern Ireland with Internment.
Think of it from a situation we could hypothetically be involved in. If someone said "XYZ European country are throwing their weight around in the EU parliament and harming our economy", you'd not be particularly bothered. If they could say "XYZ European country are throwing their weight around, harming our economy, kidnapping British people then torturing them, and dropping bombs indiscriminately" then there's a fair chance you'd hate them.
Absolutely. Should be made a televised sport.
How much "waterboarding" was used to provide the evidence of the WMDs that were never there?
The Iraq war wasn't about fighting terrorism though Ton
who mentioned the iraq war...........
Erm, Ton, I think it was the quote at the top of this post that iDave was referring to...
------------
yes, when fighting terrorism like it was used for.
British citizens (and many others) have been tortured at Guantanamo Bay and other places; no evidence of their 'terrorist activities' has ever been presented. Is that ok?
Easy question to ask; would you like it to be performed on you and/or loved ones?
I'm sure that I'm not in a minority here, the answer is no.
And like most people I suspect, I'd tell them whatever it was they wanted to hear.
Its wrong and Bush, Rumsfelt et al are war criminals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
Either breaking the 3rd or 4th (depending on how you judge the tortured, whether armed force or civi) convention of the Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Hague_Conventions
The problem with torture is it only ends when the torturer hears what they want to hear. If they want to hear about WMDs they'll keep torturing until they hear it, if the person being tortured has to make up stuff to stop the torture then what use is that? Some of the 'intelligence' gained from detainees after 9/11 turned out to be tortured suspects blurting out the plot-lines from holywood disaster movies. Then surprisingly you don't find WMDs in Iraq and you don't find Godzilla in Afganistan either
most modern suicide bombings are acts of revenge rather than religion.
Thats always been obvious hasn't it?
[i]If you asked me if I was in favour of torture, I'd say "no" pretty instantly, but this has made me think - if it would have prevented 9/11....[/i]
I think there's two separate issues which sort of get conflated.
Firstly, Is it right to torture someone to gain information that can save lives?
Secondly, and more important in reality.
How many people is it acceptable to torture who don't have the information you need to save live until you find one who does?
Apologies if this has already been covered.
No. A respect for Human Rights is the foundation of any society worth it's salt.
no. Never right.
Oh yes, water boarding is highly effective. Better than sleep and sensory deprivation.
Right or wrong is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it produces 'information' of no usable quality, hence it is stupid.
But then, what do you expect of religious fanatics (Bush, Blair etc) ? They 'believe' things, so they must be true...
No, never, under no circumstances. Ever.
I think GW Bush is trying to cover his own ass, he actually said his lawyers said Waterboarding was legal, and no I don't think torturing is justified.
I think that, of all the very good points made on this thread, it's the following that strikes a chord with me the most:
No. A respect for Human Rights is the foundation of any society worth it's salt.
I think GW Bush is trying to cover his own ass, he actually said his lawyers said Waterboarding was legal, and no I don't think torturing is justified.
I heard that on Radio 4 this morning.
Seems to me he must have lost his moral compass.
Serious question - what amounts to "Torture"?
Repeated questioning?
Shouting?
Humiliation (name calling)?
Thirst/Hunger?
Denial of cigarettes?
Stress positioning?
sensory deprivation?
White noise?
Sleep deprivation?
Couple of slaps?
Heat/Cold stress?
Mild shocks with Electrocution?
Tasering?
Beating?
Waterboarding?
Rape?
Thumbscrews?
Amputation?
hmmm... one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.. it often seems that the west's definition of terrorist.. if applied during WWII.. would have made anyone that opposed Hitler's regime a terror suspect..
anyway.. I thought this thread was about X-factor..?
To be honest I can't see why this is such a difficult subject. I tried that waterboarding once, it was fantastic, That was in Cornwall, admittedly when i did it up north it was a bit chilly. But these guys are in Cuba, so what's the problem?
Serious question - what amounts to "Torture"?
Just saw this on the BBC news, apparently our government thinks waterboarding is torture:
A Number 10 spokeswoman declined to comment directly on the claims but said it classed waterboarding as torture."We don't condone it [torture], nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11715577
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html ]Sam Harris on the "ticking bomb"[/url]