What an interesting morning

[devonwoody]

Put the tele on for the morning news.

It appears the Americans haven't got a truth drug, they are using old fashioned water torture. I suppose if it works, thats should be OK'

Mosquitoes are to be banned because it upsets the younger generation when they congregate in public places, like outside shops etc.

Downloading copyright material off the web, 3 strikes and your banned :wink:

 

[George_N]

I saw the piece on the water torture...how utterly vile. I don't care if these guys are terrorist suspects, if we do that sort of thing, or condone it by not speaking out, we are as bad as the people we are trying to stop. The "war on terror" is already lost if we become terrorists ourselves, and repeatedly taking someone to the brink of death by drowning is one of the most terrifying things I can imagine.
I'm none too happy about the indiscriminate use of sound weapons in public places either, but that is a rant for another time perhaps.

 

[CNC Paul]

Woody,

Don't forget the one about driving into the centre of London in a 4x4, from Oct will cost £25 per day

 

[RogerS]

I saw the piece on the water torture...how utterly vile.....

George, can I be Devil's advocate for a moment?

Posit that your nearest and dearest have been kidnapped and are due to be blown up in a couple of hours. The person in front of you is unequivocally and beyond any doubt whatsoever the only person who knows where the bomb and your loved ones are located and the only person who can stop the bomb being detonated and killing your loved ones. Given these circumstances, would you still say that you should not use torture to extract the information and thus save your loved ones?

 

[Dave Bamber]

I saw the piece on the water torture...how utterly vile.....

George, can I be Devil's advocate for a moment?

Posit that your nearest and dearest have been kidnapped and are due to be blown up in a couple of hours. The person in front of you is unequivocally and beyond any doubt whatsoever the only person who knows where the bomb and your loved ones are located and the only person who can stop the bomb being detonated and killing your loved ones. Given these circumstances, would you still say that you should not use torture to extract the information and thus save your loved ones?

With the utmost of possible respect, may I devil's advocate your devil's advocate?

If a foreign government plucked you from a plane when you went to return home from holiday, maybe stood you naked in a cold room for 40 hours then strapped you to a board, put a plastic bag over your head and poyured water on your face, all the time demanding you tell them where you hid the bomb, and that the 'enhanced interregation' won't stop until you tell them - how long do you think you will keep saying 'I don't know'? How long until you make up anything plausible-sounding to get them to stop? Or more likely just give assent with what they think they already know?

That's kind of the reason most rational people think torture is a pretty rotten idea.

Just MHO of course.

 

[RogerS]

Dave - I agree with what you say but in your scenario. Here there is doubt.

My scenario is different. There is no doubt that this is the right person and that they have the information. 100%. Not plucked at random from somewhere or other. This person has the information.

 

[devonwoody]

I still think a bottle of whisky or some harmless medical drug should provide any information that needs to be known.

The 9/11 remember killed thousands so something must be justified to locate the culprits.

But it appears there is not a drug treatment available otherwise I sure the Americans wouldn't torture.

But I am sure whatever was done even if they had used a tickle with a feather duster the defence would claim torture or unfair trial, wouldn't they?

 

[devonwoody]

Woody,

Don't forget the one about driving into the centre of London in a 4x4, from Oct will cost £25 per day

I would have charged £200, and also banned them from parking next to any vehicle that is smaller. :twisted:

A lady this morning took over 5 minutes trying to park hers at our local library, She couldn't get it into a space that would have been large enough to park three vehicles, In out in out in out. Ought to have had a mobile phone with video camera and sent it to Swansea.

 

[Losos]

Woody,

Don't forget the one about driving into the centre of London in a 4x4, from Oct will cost £25 per day

I would have charged £200, and also banned them from parking next to any vehicle that is smaller. :twisted:

Glad to see you ain't lost your sense of humour :lol: :lol: :lol:

On the more serious matter of terrorists. If any one can say that in the scenario mentioned above they wouldn't approve torture (ie 100% certain the guy knows where Mum & Dad are being held) then they must by definition be lying or they actually hate their parents so much they want them dead which is equally disgusting.

Personally I can see nowt wrong with sticking someones head in a bucket of water, used to happen a lot at my school :wink: and I'm pretty certain we had no terrorists there, a few bullies maybe, but no terrorists :!:

 

[Digit]

That would be very relevant Dave if there were no other evidence, but as the evidence in this case has to be presented in court to a defence council, I cannot agree.
You cannot fight this thing with kid gloves.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Dave - I agree with what you say but in your scenario. Here there is doubt.

My scenario is different. There is no doubt that this is the right person and that they have the information. 100%. Not plucked at random from somewhere or other. This person has the information.

Bootstrapping - how do you know before you've tortured them?

 

[Jake]

On the more serious matter of terrorists. If any one can say that in the scenario mentioned above they wouldn't approve torture (ie 100% certain the guy knows where Mum & Dad are being held) then they must by definition be lying or they actually hate their parents so much they want them dead which is equally disgusting.

I'm sure I would want to personally, but that doesn't mean I want to live in a state where the state apparatus does it for me. I'm sure that if put in that situation with two people, one of whom I knew to be entirely innocent, and one of whom I knew to have the information, but I was not permitted to pick and choose - I had torture both, or neither - I'd torture them both, because my family would come first. Where do you stop?

 

[Digit]

Where do you stop?

Simple, when they stop mudering our people in the name of Allah!
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Who are they, and how do you know when you've got one?

Do you just torture anyone with brown skin and a beard until they let you know whether they are or aren't one?

 

[RogerS]

Who are they, and how do you know when you've got one?

Do you just torture anyone with brown skin and a beard until they let you know whether they are or aren't one?

Well that's Richard Branson for the chop, then!

 

[RogerS]

On the more serious matter of terrorists. If any one can say that in the scenario mentioned above they wouldn't approve torture (ie 100% certain the guy knows where Mum & Dad are being held) then they must by definition be lying or they actually hate their parents so much they want them dead which is equally disgusting.

I'm sure I would want to personally, but that doesn't mean I want to live in a state where the state apparatus does it for me. I'm sure that if put in that situation with two people, one of whom I knew to be entirely innocent, and one of whom I knew to have the information, but I was not permitted to pick and choose - I had torture both, or neither - I'd torture them both, because my family would come first. Where do you stop?

I'm not sure of the point that you're making, Jake. Are you saying that in the above scenario you would torture them both? I know that I would because, as you say (I think), my family comes first.

 

[Gary M]

Put the tele on for the morning news.

It appears the Americans haven't got a truth drug, they are using old fashioned water torture. I suppose if it works, thats should be OK'

=D> =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cheers for that DW havnt laughed as much for a while
Ps, i seen it too.
Gary.

 

[Digit]

Jake, you seem to be assuming that they simply take people off the streets and torture and execute them. But why would they want to risk executing the wrong people? It would be stupid to torture an individual into a confession cos, as was pointed out, eventually they would confess to anything.
What actually is far more likely is that stress is applied to help identify conspirators.
I can't see anybody wasting their time on somebody they think is not going to be able to give them useful info.
I'd prefer to be a prisoner of the Yanks than some Muslim extremist that's for sure!

Roy.

 

[Losos]

I'm not sure of the point that you're making, Jake. Are you saying that in the above scenario you would torture them both? I know that I would because, as you say (I think), my family comes first.[/quote]

I'm a tad confused too. The OP was a good one but I see the thread is in danger of sinking under the 'lawyer speak' you know the bit about my morals are higher than yours even if I'm willing to go into court and lie through my teeth to defend someone.

Also some people may not have had the dubious pleasure of living in countries where lying and deceipt are a way of life so they can not imagine anyone not telling the truth in court.

 

[Jake]

I'm not sure of the point that you're making, Jake. Are you saying that in the above scenario you would torture them both? I know that I would because, as you say (I think), my family comes first.

I'm a tad confused too.

No need to be, I am saying that I would torture you to death if it saved my family, even if I knew you to be innocent. It would help me to do that, knowing that you would be happy for all sundry to be tortured, but that isn't essential.

The OP was a good one but I see the thread is in danger of sinking under the 'lawyer speak' you know the bit about my morals are higher than yours even if I'm willing to go into court and lie through my teeth to defend someone.

Is that a personal comment, because it seems like you are accusing me of something?

Also some people may not have had the dubious pleasure of living in countries where lying and deceipt are a way of life so they can not imagine anyone not telling the truth in court.

What on earth are you saying?