No, I wouldn't. By condoning and using torture (even a little bit, or just for those extreme cases) you are saying the ends justifies the means. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry to piss on your parade, but it does. False logic of terrorism my ass, terrorism works, and both us know it. The only reason it works is because of craven cowards not willing to quench the flame entirely. If you break a human being to such a degree that he cannot resist anymore, then we will have won. If we can break these invididuals, and obtain information in the process, then we will have gained the upper hand. </font>[/QUOTE]At what cost? Sure, we "gain the upper hand", but we become monsters in the process. That is not a price I'm willing to pay, or to have paid in my name.

No, I wouldn't. By condoning and using torture (even a little bit, or just for those extreme cases) you are saying the ends justifies the means. </font>[/QUOTE]. If you break a human being to such a degree that he cannot resist anymore, then we will have won..... This war on terrorism won't be won by guns or bombs, but by who has the greater will. </font>[/QUOTE]That comment sounds like it came right out of the "al-Qaeda standard operating procedures manual."

If you break a human being to such a degree that he cannot resist anymore, then we will be nothing more than terrorists ourselves.

It appears as if we're at a stalemate. Ah well. To each his own.

What if the human being you break was totally innocent, just in the wrong place at the wrong time? What if he/she gave you false information, just because he/she wanted the torture to end? There are times when false information is worse than no information.

[ 11-06-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

That's the risk you must take.

The false information might however get you into a situation worse than what you were in before. I admit that torture at times can produce results (albeit in an inhumane way), but if you have no means of being able to verify the truthfulness of what is said, then if you act upon the information, IMO the risks can be too big.

[ 11-06-2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

I'd like to point out again that this doomsday scenario has never happened and that the current defense of torture is only applicable to the industrialized world, yet it justifies the abuse, rape, and murder of hundreds of thousands annually. Recall that some in the US think it's only torture when it causes organ failure.

Torture as state terror works for a bit, yet undermines the authority of that state. Torture as interrogation probably won't work*, and also undermines the authority of the state. The impact is directly proportional to the outside perception of that state (Canadian torture means more than Zambian torture). If you wonder how, consider the impact on future relations with other nations as well as the relationship between citizen and state. Also consider examples of modern states trying to recover from what they did to control their populations like Argentina and Guatemala. It seems like a lot to squander.

*Like I said before, even if we want a contingency plan in case the extremely unlikely 'approaching doomsday but we have this one guy' scenario occurs, this is the kind of thing it must be weighted against. Is torture, for example, better than tactics US police use? If they have someone in custody, that person is facing a miserable remainder of his life; bargaining on contingency of the information's accuracy seems like a much more effective way of dealing with such scenarios to me. Remember, stone faced men ready to die are the stuff of myths and legend. Self doubt and self preservation is human nature. After the jig is up, the odds are you're not dealing with a William Wallace. If you're dealing with someone who has a martyr complex, torture only reinforces that complex anyway.

No, I wouldn't. By condoning and using torture (even a little bit, or just for those extreme cases) you are saying the ends justifies the means. </font>[/QUOTE]. If you break a human being to such a degree that he cannot resist anymore, then we will have won..... This war on terrorism won't be won by guns or bombs, but by who has the greater will. </font>[/QUOTE]That comment sounds like it came right out of the "al-Qaeda standard operating procedures manual."</font>[/QUOTE]I'll have to track that down for you, it's really a fascinating read (what the CIA reveals of it anyway)

I think the agent in Serenity (great movie, go see it) said it best, I realise I am a monster, and my ideal world has no place for me. There are people willing to take up that mantle and do things to protect and shelter the rest of the populace that would make them outcasts or criminals in their own societies, US government hitmen for example (who of course ;) don't exist)

And here it is.

I think the agent in Serenity (great movie, go see it) said it best, I realise I am a monster, and my ideal world has no place for me. There are people willing to take up that mantle and do things to protect and shelter the rest of the populace that would make them outcasts or criminals in their own societies, US government hitmen for example (who of course ;) don't exist) </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but shooting some terrorist leader or drug lord is a bit different than systematically torturing potentially hundreds of prisoners, who might or might not be terrorists. ;)

Not that I accuse the US for this; I just want to get a point cross.

[ 11-07-2005, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

How naive. In case you haven't heard: no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Bush says "we do not torture".

I'll leave the reader to try and reconcile that statement with this:

If his administration doesn't torture, why are they trying to get an exemption for the CIA? Answers on a postcard...

Also this rather cryptic remark:

Does "make it more possible to do our job" mean that torture is a part of doing that job successfully?

Well, he obviously meant White House employees don't torture. :D

I don't know about that. Have you listed to a GWB speach? :D