Naaah, the nice thing is that little people like us are unlikely to ever come to the attentions of those in power.

I don't ask you to humour me,..only to give a straight answer to a straight question.

The circumstances of the senario are clear enough, and a simple yes or no would have done quite nicely.

However after all your moralising, when it came to the crunch you ended up with a giant FAIL.

Did you ever think about a career as an MP ?

Dick old son, look back at my posts. If it helps, No, I do not approve of torture. I wouldn't approve its use in any circumstance.

Is that simple enough to pick up on?

dont kid your self.if you go onto youtube the new world order.play with it and you should come to (eventualy) reasons for the wars. terror.terror laws .masons.the next two mid east wars and finaly what going to happen to the lives of us little people.make your own mind up.a lot of things are in place already.

The notion that little people don’t matter isn’t just wrong in the internet age, it has always been wrong, even when word got around by pigeons and smoke signals. There has always been a collective sense of right and wrong, and when those in power get it too wrong, the guillotines will be sharpened again.

With more reality, both Thatcher and Blair, the most popular Prime Ministers in my time, were put to the knife when they overstepped the mark and upset the little people.

That’s why politicians kiss babies, little people matter.

In which case you have just condemned a thousand innocents to a horrible death in order to save one possible terrorist from torture.

A wise decision ?

A decision that leaves you with a clear conscience ?

Personally I would go for the greater good, or lesser harm depending which way you look at it.

Also the reason why they shouldn't upset old Grannies.

This whole thread is a masterclass from bil on avoiding the issue (no offence - I'm full of admiration)

That seems clear enough - it is also clearly at odds with this:

Why you think it is a "different kettle of fish"?

A pertinent question was asked here:

I'll be interested to see your answer to that question - however I predict you will answer a different one...

The person that I am would not torture, would not approve of torture in any way form or shape.

The question asked was bogus, because in no way would any of us ever be in that position.

If anyone hurt me badly enough, I would hurt them as badly as I could, and I would enjoy that.

There is a great difference between the general and the personal.

Does that help? I threw in the personal to illustrate the difference and the pointlessness of the question.

And it won't be a brief yes or no, it'll be the usual verbose, self pontificating stuff he's given to writing. I blame the cheap plonk he drinks, his ramblings get sillier as the night wears on. I think he could be CM's father at times.

That is clear and unequivocal.

The question is hypothetical rather than bogus. The point is that none of us is ever likely to be in such a position but that doesn't stop us from having an opinion on it nor saying what we would do if we were in such a hypothetical position.

We are not talking about getting someone back for hurting you - revenge if you like - we are talking about torture and particularly torturing one person in order to gain information which will save the lives of many others. - quite different.

I don't see why there is a huge difference between the general and the personal. The principle is the same. If you think it is OK to torture someone in order to gain information which will stop one of your own coming to harm - then surely it is ok for someone else to to the same. It might not be your loved one that's being saved - but it is someone's.

Or a relative doing serious prison time after being picked up and tortured simply because they fit a stereotype, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then, i dare say, you'd also feel different

Damn good point. It's stuff like that that reall strengthens our enemies.

I'm trying to make a point here but some can't see it.

It's all very well saying 'it's a hypothetical question,' but this is so hypothetical that it is ridiculous.

Let's look at how ridiculous this is. 'Would torturing one person be justified if it prevented a 9-11?"

The fact is that if this were true, yeah. Let's rephrase it.

If you set fire to the bus you will save 9-11 and the lives of a thousand people, hundreds of them children, because the terrorist is in there and there is no other way to stop him. Sadly there are a hundred children in the bus with him, and they will all burn to death.

So, will you torch the bus? You are the only one who can get there in time!

Too silly?

OK, usual thing, have to torture 1 muslim, sorry terrorist, in order to prevent 9-11.

This time the catch is you have do the torturing.

Step up please all those who would do it, or if not why not?