What an interesting morning

[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.

Yes, I am. But I am glad I don't live in a state where the police and security services are permitted to do that on behalf*, much as I might want them to do it if it were my family under threat, or you might want them to if it was your family, of Digit might if it was or Losos might, etc, etc, etc. It would basically be a carte blanche to torture anyone under suspicion of [whatever the level of perceived (but not proven) guiltyness is which is deemed to be enough at a particular time by a particular officer of the state.

This forum has seen some stupid right wing nonsense in its time, but I haven't noticed the full-on approval ratings for a fascist state until now.



*let's ignore the fact that the security services do, but by proxy.

 

[Jake]

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.

How trusting you are.

What actually is far more likely is that stress is applied to help identify conspirators.

I suspect, that like any security service, they on a whole raft of stuff of differing reliability like informers (who may or may not have dubious motives), information provided under torture by others, and just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, to name a few.

I can't see anybody wasting their time on somebody they think is not going to be able to give them useful info.

Again, how trusting you are. I'm sure the Stasi, the SS, etc, were just as reliable. I guess we don't have to worry too much this time because it isn't the likes of you and me, hey?

I'd prefer to be a prisoner of the Yanks than some Muslim extremist that's for sure!

Maybe, just. Less likely to be beheaded, but probably more likely to be driven insane. Don't know which I'd choose.

 

[Digit]

During the conflict between France and the Algerians the Foreign Legion was in the forefront.
One day a French officer realised that he recognized one of his men and had him brought before him and asked the man, a German, if he recognized him.
The German agreed that he did.
The German had tortured him some years earlier when the officer had been a member of the Resistance.
The officer proudly stated that he had said nothing.
The German responded by saying that the next man did.
The officer wanted to know how he, a German officer, could order the torture of a prisoner.
The German explained very quietly that his men were being killed by the resistance and he owed a duty to his men to use what ever methods necessary to protect them.
Some time later the French officer was faced with the same quandary, and accepted the need.
The first duty of Government is to protect its citizens, and it would be failing in its responsibilities if it shirked those responsibilities.
If they are not upto such decisions they shouldn't take on the task, earlier Home Secs were faced with awful decisions, but were man enough to face the task.
Our lot are keen enough to accept the perks, one day they may have to earn them!

Roy.

 

[Digit]

That, Jake, would seem to suggest that a man who knows he is soon to be decapitated is likely to suffer less stress than someone who knows he is going to be tortured but is unlikely, in the hands of the Americans at least, to die as a result.
I'm sorry my friend, but that seems rather wooly thinking to me.

Roy.

 

[ByronBlack]

lets just remember that a number of british citizens were picked up by the Americans and kept against their will and without a trial in Guantanamo bay for some years, some of these were mis-treated and there have been reports that some were tortured. They were never convicted of any crimes, and I believe some of have recently been let out with no following legal action against them.

Do not believe that any country will only torture those that are proven to be guilty.

It's a mess the world is in right now, but lets not kid ourselves that are we are not necessarily the good guy's, there are shades of grey - but I certainly do not condone or justify what terrorist groups do. There's a number of reasons why terrorism has arrived in the west like it has over the last number of decades. Every country needs to look at itself on this issue.

 

[Digit]

As I pointed out earlier, modern interrogation is likely to be to obtain information, rather than a confession.
Only recently has British law been changed to cover those who may hold information of assistance to terrorists etc with five convictions this last few days.
Before that those who were released by the Americans would not have committed an offence under our laws, that does not mean that they did not have useful info.
Laws always follow after the need becomes apparent, rarely before.

Roy.

 

[Rich]

Jake, I have to agree with Losos comment on "lawyers" but I don't believe his comments were meant to be personal, in my opinion, if I could use an illustration, recently, several high profile celebrities have been "charged" with motoring offences of one sort or another, the police know they are guilty, as do the cctv cameras, and the media who can't wait to print it and the general public who read and watch the claims, then along comes this super duper lawyer/barrister, who gets them off on a technicality, now, what sort of chap would do this? he KNOWS THAT THEY ARE GUILTY, yet he still defends them, it can only be for thirty pieces of silver, I got done for doing 35 in a 30 zone, I had to cough up £60.00 which I could ill afford at the time, in my opinion he should say to them "NO I wont defend you, you have commited an offence and must pay the price" unless of course he's willing to defend ME for a VERY small fee, just to show that he's not biased in any way.
regards, Rich.

 

[Digit]

I think I'd better join your club Rich, I suggest two beer bottles, rampant, as club badge.
What do you reckon? :lol:

Roy.

 

[Rich]

As long as they are full Roy, :lol: :lol: :lol:
btw, Iv'e pm'd you.
Rich.

 

[RogerS]

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.

Yes, I am. But I am glad I don't live in a state where the police and security services are permitted to do that on behalf*, much as I might want them to do it if it were my family under threat, or you might want them to if it was your family, of Digit might if it was or Losos might, etc, etc, etc. It would basically be a carte blanche to torture anyone under suspicion of [whatever the level of perceived (but not proven) guiltyness is which is deemed to be enough at a particular time by a particular officer of the state.
...

*let's ignore the fact that the security services do, but by proxy.

Couldn't agree more.

However I think that we're in danger of losing the point of my original post which was in response to George's post (and that of Dave's) where my impression was that they would not condone torture under any circumstances. You and I agree that there are some circumstances where we would personally justify torture. I would be interested to hear whether or not they (or anyone else), given the same circumstances, would continue to not condone torture.

 

[Digit]

I replied Rich but it seems to have gone adrift, I'll attend to it right away mate.

Roy.

 

[Philly]

O.k. Gents. Time to say goodnight to this one.
I am locking this thread - please lets move back toward woodworking related stuff.
Philly