JLFS

I am not saying that my senario would happen, I was putting an extreme example, as you say to measure you scruples in a way.

Ok now we kiow that yours are 100 percent in tact, wheras mine are somewhat lacking.

If a kidnapper had my son locked in a coffin underground with a couple of hours of air left, then I would like him to be tortured, in whatever way, till he talked, if he didnt, well at least I would know that I tried everything in my power to save her, you would not, fair enough.

It may be some conslolation it may not.
You have more scruples than me, I bow to you..........but I wonder what you wife feels......

bil

You simply put forward a ridiculous scenario.

Now had you asked me what I would do if hurting someone would realistically save my child, ahhhhh. Now that I would enjoy, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

JLFS

Listen bil, I dont know what circles you move in, but I am never consulted when anything about G.tanamo or rendition flights have been involved in torture, same way as I was not consulted when the Bank of England did quantative easing, or cuts in the NHS budget in the UK.

I can still have an opinion though
and if I did belive that the NHS needs to have the budget cut, that does not mean that I want to personally be involved in the cutting, as in sacking nurses and cancelling operations, it is someone elses domain, and it always will never be my domain, the same with torture.


Well I think "each to his own" I would rather pay a fortune to Dynarod than get my hands dirty, Let them suck it up and deal with it.

JLFS

That is another point on which we differ, I would certainly hurt someone who was hurting my child, but in no way would I enjoy it.

I woud see it as something that had to be done, a necessary evil if you like, not as a form of entertainment to be enjoyed and revelled in.......

rugbymatt

I love how things work out sometimes ya know....

bil

Dude, you placed me in the position where I got to OK torture. In that theoretical position I wouldn't authorise it because I would have no faith in the system, and besides in a rational state, no way could I approve it.

I tried to put you in a similar, but theoretical position, but you won't try it for size.

Here's one for you. You have the person who has done you great harm, and there is no way that you can be punished for what you do.

How far would you go? Remember, no-one will ever punish you.

bil

I wa just lucky that the bath was the right distance, and I could get in position fast enough.

The lesson? In boarding schools, never go into a toilet or bathroom without a sound lock.

bil

Really? I'd really enjoy it. I'd want that their worst enemy would weep over what I had done to them, because at that point I'd feel I was really getting into my swing.

JLFS

Of course I woud have a go at him, I would try my best to come out as the winner and try to hurt him more than he could hurt me, I might even shoot him, depending on the harm he did to me..........And?

bil

Me, I'm a pussycat. I only kill the rats because they do harm here, but in all honesty I'd rather cut a deal with them.

Someone who freed me by destroying all I had? I'd be free to do anything as I then had nothing to lose. I'd ensure when people came across what I had done, hardened police officers would lose their lunch on the spot.

I once knew a right wing xtian who hated seeing the unemployed relaxing on the beach. His attitude (seriously) was that only people who worked and/or paid taxes should be allowed to enjoy such things. The unemployed should be locked in windowless rooms until they got a job.

His world would consist of gated communities with only the deserving permitted luxury. I did point out that he had better pray that people like me were on the inside and enjoying the good things, but apparantly I lacked the religious qualifications to enter his particular paradise.

So, I pointed out to him that one day someone like me would breach his walls.

On that day, I would destroy his world with him alive to watch what I did with all he held dear. Finally, I would carefully remove his liver, barbecue it in front of his eyes and eat it.

Then I'd turn nasty.

A man with nothing to lose is a very, very dangerous person.

JLFS

A very wise man, i hope you pointed out to him that it is very difficult to get a job if you are locked in a windowless room........

But getting back to the topic in hand, of terrorism and torture, I dont think we can equate it with being left alone in a room to slug it out with someone who has done you harm.

I still think that torture, could be justified in certain circumstances, not as a matter of course, but as a last resort,some of these sods can be quiet dagerous you know.

Dick Dasterdly

As I expected, unable to give a straight answer to a straight question.

Your attempt to wriggle out of it by altering the circumstances doesn't wash with me at all.

It's easy enough for do-gooders to have a fine code of ethics and preach to everyone what is right and what is wrong,... but put them at the sharp end of proceedings where they themselves have to accept some responsiblity for thousands of lives and they tend to fail miserably.

bil

Oh, he'd let them out to go to interviews....

You miss the point. The state hasn't got a ******* clue most of the time, and only have diffuse targets to aim at. Under those circumstances, torture is a very unreliable tool.

The scenario put forward where you know 100%? Yeah, and we'd get to go home on the flying pigs that were passing at the time.

Personal torture, done to someone who has deliberately and cruelly wronged you, now that's different. That's personal.

bil

I thought I'd been pretty straight, but in an attempt to humour you.

Torture isn't any use unless you have a damn good idea that they are terrorists, and a damn good idea of what they are up to and with whom. At that point, who needs torture? As I have said, the likelihood of you being in a position to stop a 9-11 by simply torturing a single muslim is so unlikely as to be derisory.

What's the sh'ite with "have to accept some responsiblity for thousands of lives and they tend to fail miserably"

No-one here realistically is ever going to be in such a position, let alone anyone who has the slightest moral scruples.

The fact is, I wouldn't trust anyone in government with the right to torture, and torture as a tool of government is morally unacceptable, and of dubious efficacy.

montgomail

Wish I hadn't have read this thread now, I'm sure to have nightmares.