Australians oppose torture to fight terrorism

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm skeptical of torture is because I question its effectiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's a very, very bad reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nancy this is tho ONLY sensible reason. Only a complete idiot would refuse to torture a murderer to save innocent lives and make everyone safer. The question is not whether torture can be justified ( HINT : that's easy ) But whether or not it works.

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]


To talk about torture yes or no presupposes a state with the power TO torture.

And now I'm not even talking about the morality of the actions of the people doing this.

[NeBlis]

I'm not talking about the power of the state ( your right its out of control) . Stay on topic.
The question was "use of torture in investigating/fighting terrorism - even if it was guaranteed to prevent a successful terrorist attack."
Basic Spock logic "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" especially when the one is a psycotic waste of DNA.

NeBlis

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about the power of the state ( your right its out of control) . Stay on topic.
The question was "use of torture in investigating/fighting terrorism - even if it was guaranteed to prevent a successful terrorist attack."
Basic Spock logic "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" especially when the one is a psycotic waste of DNA.

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me turn it around:

What do you think is gonna happen when you give one group ALL the guns: submarines, helicopter, WMD's, bunkerbusters, bazookas, power to tax, power to do anything they want at whim (after all, they have all the power). As opposed to the general public who is completely powerless to oppose these guns.

There can only be one conceivable outcome: violence.


And here you guys are discussing whether it's good or not good for this particular group to use their power for this or for that (as though you have any power to control them). So ofcourse, if you talk about this, you will NEVER touch the fundamental problem of whether this powerdifference should exist AT ALL. .....so logically, meanwhile the state will continue to grow in power while you argue minutiae.

[rsk111]

Torture is a nasty thing to think about. When I discuss it with people, there are two cop-outs that people like to take so they don't have to bother themselves with this messy question. Both are present in this thread.

1. Assuming the person to be tortured is absolutely guilty of something horrible. This one is used by pro-torture people. It is much easier to justify torturing someone if you know this to be true. But in the real world that is not often the case.

2. The torture is not effective cop-out. This is used by the anti-torture people. Now, I'm not saying that this is not a valid point (i.e., the thought someone who is tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear so the torture will stop and not necessarily the truth). The reason I don't like this response is that it completely circumvents the moral question. So, for anyone who believes this, I say that your objection is noted, but for the purposes of the moral question, assume that torture is highly effective.

So, a better question to think about (and someone else already hinted at it in the thread) is the following: Assuming torture is a highly effective technique, would you support the torture of someone possibly or even probably innocent if it could possibly or even probably save many lives.

For me, this is a tough one.

[NeBlis]

I agree with you sir. I thought we were just talking about torture and if it could be justified. I say yes, given specific circumstances.
This is regardless of whether it is a state or an AC community or any other group.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you sir. I thought we were just talking about torture and if it could be justified. I say yes, given specific circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely hope you or your family member is tortured.