To Torture or not?

[Tuearts right boot]

Or as some guys in Hereford would call it, interview without coffee.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If you're going to torture them for the sole purpose of giving them some gyp mainly because you're a sadistic twat then at least that's a motive I understand, even if I think it stinks. But to extract useful information from someone there are generally far better ways of conducting an interrogation.

 

[BigJoe#1]

If you're going to torture them for the sole purpose of giving them some gyp mainly because you're a sadistic twat then at least that's a motive I understand, even if I think it stinks. But to extract useful information from someone there are generally far better ways of conducting an interrogation.

I think that will come down to the definition/interpretation of torture. Did you have anything in particular in mind, considering you're dealing with hardened fundamentalists who, I agree would probably know less than the interrogators?

For me it's all about how far the authorities would respect their rights as its certain they would know something, even if it was who their contacts were and how the contact was being made etc.... Not sure sitting down with a cup of tea and scones would do it though...

 

[hilts]

If you're going to torture them for the sole purpose of giving them some gyp mainly because you're a sadistic twat then at least that's a motive I understand, even if I think it stinks. But to extract useful information from someone there are generally far better ways of conducting an interrogation.

Tickling?

I personally don't care too much about the pain caused to a murdering terrorist however i certainly don't subscribe to the view we in the west are always the good guys, it is a human instinct we should try and avoid

 

[Blue Mist]

So Jihadi Jean Paul is tortured and after his toe nails have been ripped out and he has been waterboarded for 10 hours he tells the Gendarme that Abdul (I made that name up) is a terrorist. Do we
a) arrest Abdul and torture him ?
b) investigate whether he is a terrorist but don't arrest as there is no real evidence ?
c) Sling him in a dark cell and hope everyone forgets about him ?

Yeh tough call to make that.

 

[Kippax.]

no

 

[Damocles]

So, hypothetically speaking; should the authorities take the two Paris gunmen alive, what levels of pain and torture should be inflicted to get information, any information, that they have out of them?
.

None. You can't on the one hand condemn barbarism in the terrorists then act in a barbaric way yourself. We're better than that as a society in culture. They're the people who torture and use violence as a means of coercion, not us.

There's also the fact that torture has been consistently shown to not work.

 

[Juan King]

So, hypothetically speaking; should the authorities take the two Paris gunmen alive, what levels of pain and torture should be inflicted to get information, any information, that they have out of them?
.

None. You can't on the one hand condemn barbarism in the terrorists then act in a barbaric way yourself. We're better than that as a society in culture. They're the people who torture and use violence as a means of coercion, not us.

There's also the fact that torture has been consistently shown to not work.

The west use violence as a means of coercion all the time. From the yanks in Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo to us & others bombing Iraqi's from the sky.

 

[Damocles]

So, hypothetically speaking; should the authorities take the two Paris gunmen alive, what levels of pain and torture should be inflicted to get information, any information, that they have out of them?
.

None. You can't on the one hand condemn barbarism in the terrorists then act in a barbaric way yourself. We're better than that as a society in culture. They're the people who torture and use violence as a means of coercion, not us.

There's also the fact that torture has been consistently shown to not work.

The west use violence as a means of coercion all the time. From the yanks in Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo to us & others bombing Iraqi's from the sky.

Just because they do it, doesn't mean they should continue to do it. And to be fair when they were caught it caused mass uproar and potentially criminal charges.

And again, I'll repeat this, torture has consistently been shown to not actually work.

You can argue against it on moral ground which is my preferred reason or the logistical reason that it is a waste of time.

 

[Juan King]

None. You can't on the one hand condemn barbarism in the terrorists then act in a barbaric way yourself. We're better than that as a society in culture. They're the people who torture and use violence as a means of coercion, not us.

There's also the fact that torture has been consistently shown to not work.

The west use violence as a means of coercion all the time. From the yanks in Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo to us & others bombing Iraqi's from the sky.

Just because they do it, doesn't mean they should continue to do it. And to be fair when they were caught it caused mass uproar and potentially criminal charges.

And again, I'll repeat this, torture has consistently been shown to not actually work.

You can argue against it on moral ground which is my preferred reason or the logistical reason that it is a waste of time.

I'm not agreeing with the use of torture, except for people who are into it on a consensual basis sexually. I'm just pointing out we can't take the high ground as being "better than that as a society" when our society carries out such acts frequently.