Torture… how far should we go?

Well said, Richie. Precisely my fear.

I am not in favor of state-enforced torture or executions. These are powers which I think a state should not have.

~Ulrika~

However there are plenty of convenient, discount options for a constitution-bound leader.

- Releasing suspects to their governments (such as Saudi Arabia)

- Releasing suspects where the public would take matters into their own hands

- 'accidentally' leaking information that would make a suspect's life unlivable

- Free 'Witness Protection Program' tee shirts

I'm sorry Ulrika. For some reason I was remembering that wrong. You pass my non-conflicting beliefs test in this case.

Interesting, Ulrika. I'd never heard that terminology before. I'm definitely deontological. I tend to draw lines and then not cross them, but the position of the line might shift over time. I feel the moment you start making exceptions you've opened the door to making more and more of them. It's also why I'm so liberal, because I'm not noted for my willpower.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/

International Criminal Court.

Now to new office.. new day - new work...Take care all..

This is also a good one:


http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html

Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture

Art, Truth & Politics

Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture was pre-recorded, and shown on video December 7, 2005, in Börssalen at the Swedish Academy in Stockholm.

Worth every minute of looking... Hits all hard,... but worth it!! Download the file.


/The Nobel Prize in Literature

The Nobel Prize in Literature has recognized the whole spectrum of literary works including poetry, novels, short stories, plays, essays and speeches. Starting off with the first prize in 1901 to the poet and philosopher Sully Prudhomme, author of Stances et Poèmes (1865), the Prize has distinguished the works of authors from different languages and cultural backgrounds. It has been awarded to unknown masters as well as authors acclaimed worldwide./

*****

...and if you dare search the net by combining the word torture with diff well know organisations... dont forget to put ” in front and behind the words”...

Have a great day!!!!

This position should be rethought. It is either ok to torture without limits or not. If it is ok to torture under the scenario as you state, why in the world should we toss someone in jail? This issue should be thought out ahead of time and the letter of the law should be followed.

Imagine a catastrophy the world has never known. A nuclear bomb explodes in the middle of Manhattan killing a million people and radiation fallout affects another 20 million.

A week later it is leaked to the Washington Post that 24 hours before the bomb exploded the FBI had in its custody at the time one of the masterminds of the plan who reveals had the knowledge to stop this attack but laughs at our inability to make him talk.

President Bush was notified 24 hours before the attack that we could stop it if we only could extract the information from this terrorist without limits to how far we could go. President Bush says no and orders the interrogators to make him comfortable, treat him with respect and ask politely for the information. They do so and the terrorist laughs in their face.

Do you praise President Bush and the interrogators for following the law or vilify them for not stopping this attack.

Torture is fairly well proved to be ineffective as a source for getting information. The question you ask therefore is absurd as torture wouldn't work .

The question is valid. Shall I take it that you would praise President Bush then?

The awful truth is that torture works against most people. That doesn't make it right, but it does make the issue more complex.

The scenario is not valid.

EVERYONE would be praising the president, the Washington Post would be writing whatever the government told it to write, there would be MinuteMan III sky-streaks still hanging in the air and likely you could bake an entire cow in 20 minutes on any sidewalk in Tehran.

Oh, it is valid alright. Just because the question is difficult and you don't want to commit to an answer does not mean the question is not valid.

No, really, it's not the least bit valid.


1. It is completely out of character for pres. Bush.

2. It is absolutely not how terrorists are dealt with today - it is easy to find a government willing to do what a US president won't, on a moment's notice.

3. NO president would risk the incredible 'loss' scenario for himself or his own party - they would create an alternative blame scenario through which to channel society's anger, even if it had to be invented.

So your scenario is most definitely not how things work.




So, at the same level of reality, here is my reply.

Straggling survivors from Gotham fashion a giant spotlight from the twisted steel, and shine its bat-shaped glare up at the bottoms of the radioactive clouds.

Like everyone else, I don't waste a bit of breath on the President either way, and simply wait for the superhero to turn back time.

Wag the dog,

Most everyone has a pain threshold or breaking point.

However, I'm more likely to restate it as: torture is a fairly well proven and effective source for getting misinformation (in most cases). But that's pretty much what Kendra is saying: It just doesn't work, however you want to look at it.

Lots of people admitted to being witches, but that didn't make it so.

In most cases you'd tell a person what you think they want to hear. And in the case of a captive terrrorist who is loyal and fanatical, I'd be willing to bet they'd let slip some juicy, albeit useless, information that would, for at least a short amount of time, stop the pain.

I'd be grieving for the dead. Or dead myself.

But ... assuming I lived (since I'm across the Hudson River) and after a few days of shock and disbelief, I'd be asking not why torture wasn't used, but how the nuclear device was allowed into this country ... why our government has invaded Iraq and ignored real nuclear threats like Iran and North Korea, or China and Pakistan who have acknowledged selling / leaking nuclear secrets.

You are definitely on to something. The probability that the U.S. will find itself in a situation, where the torture of a single person is the only thing that will stop the detonation of a nuclear weapon, is infinitesimal. I believe, that that argument exists only as a very weak philosophical argument to justify torture (why I don't know).

A much more probable cause for the detonation of a nuclear weapon would be the failure to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology and material. Our efforts should be focused on those things which have the greatest probability of stopping proliferation, namely aggressively purchasing fallow Soviet fissile material and hitting countries that proliferate nuclear technology with hard sanctions.

If a nuclear detonation occurs anywhere in the world, it will not because of the lack of the freedom to torture but the lack of nonproliferation efforts.

~Ulrika~

That's really quotable. Too bad we don't have a senator saying it. /sigh

It's a shame also that the last President who actually did anything about reducing nuclear weapons was Reagan. (Not to start a tangent discussion about Reagan - I have strong mixed feelings about him, too.)

Just about every weapon advancement ever used landed in 'enemy' hands within 100 years or less.

Chariots, armour, crossbows, artillery, dreadnoughts, tanks, nuclear weapons. And all the dots inbetween.


Historically speaking, nonproliferation is a hopeless dream.

The 'big advance' will be learning how to get along.


It goes far beyond George Bush II. Western civilisation was hated before he came along and will be hated after. A lot of political, cultural and religious surety in the world, matched with the West's, will keep the pot boiling. George's meddlings just heated it up a little faster lately.


It took 1400 years before civilisation finally re-organised itself well enough to even repair the roads laid down in Roman times.

Long time? Just an eyeblink, compared to the half life of plutonium.

^ What Desmond said reminded me of scifi stories dealing with the rise of superweapons. Or in one such case, when nations develop war computers... Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" has a great nod to this sort of thing.

Some believe if such arms ever came to exist and were deployed, a war would be over pretty quickly.

Sad it is so hard to do basic things like everyone be friends. Conflict is interesting and all that for stories, but it's quite redundant now. Same thing over and over, the human race is shameful in not coming up with something better despite all our "advanced technology".

"How many ways can we think of to kill each other?"

That's awful.

I've been following your posts tonight as you move from thread to thread posting quick replies that have little to do with the main topic. Based on the speed at which you're laying down the posts, you're probably doing a quick skim and a free-form reply to a post close to the bottom (in this case identified as Desmond's). Is this a kind of blogging for you or are you racing from thread to thread to hit the 10k mark before Willow?

~Ulrika~

Good post, I agree.

This is how I see it, if we have a known terrorist in our hands and he has information on how to stop this attack; I say skin him alive if we have to, here is a better way to look at it if we could have stopped 9-11 like this would we? Would people rather have many lives lost for this one that hates our guts anyways? To me this is letting them win, If we had known about the nuclear attack and did nothing we might lose NY or the white house all together, to me that is worth more then one life

How is the question valid?

On the other point --I'd praise Bush highly if he resigned his office and submitted to the judgement of the World Court.