JLFS

I have always said I would not, in the same way that I would not unblock our sewer pipe, or amputate a gangrenous leg, .......god enough.

bil

So will you authorise burning the bus?

jimenato

Yes I would but the question is superfluous.

I like eating beef but I would rather I didn't have to kill the cow - I would prefer someone else to do it. I would if I had to though.

Londonuck

Is it too much to expect our government secret service departments to do their job properly without resorting to torture?

HBG

As a normal Guardian reader who supports the concept of freedom and is completely undecided about torture, I read this article earlier:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...tors-treatment

I believe the young soldier confessed immediately to sending a ton of confidential material to Wikileaks last July, and I believe he has been tortured ever since, perhaps more subtly than being water boarded. Yet he has nothing more to tell and can’t cause any more damage because he’s locked up in a secure psychiatric unit and is checked on every five minutes.

I think that’s a different kind of torture, revenge motivated, and I have no hesitation in saying that I totally disagree with it.

bil

Dude, you slay me. Did you write that first bit with a straight face?

jimenato

OK - This is good.

What we are doing is playing "Scruples" - ever played it?

Basically a contentious question is posed - like this one - and you have three possible answers - YES, NO and DEPENDS. If you answer "yes" or "no" then you must defend that position against the other players. If you answer "depends" then you must immediately say what it depends upon. I am answering "depends" and I am saying that it depends upon the circumstances - the people involved (members of own family for instance), the level of harm which would be avoided and so on. You are saying "no" - not under any circumstances.

The point is that there are no clear cut answers, there are grey and blurry lines. You have said - quite categorically that there is no way you would ever, under any circumstances, condone torture. You are not acknowledging any room for judgement or the circumstances pertaining at the time, the immediacy of the danger or any other factor, you are saying no - always.

I and others are saying that there are judgements to be made and specific circumstances to be considered when making such a dreadful decision. Torturing someone when I was certain that he could give me some information that would avoid a greater tragedy is something I would very reluctantly consider - especially if a member of my family was involved. You have said that you wouldn't - ever.

Your bus scenario is a big step further and obviously anyone would baulk at that. I cannot conceive the circumstances which would cause me to approve such action but I have to acknowledge that there might be a scenario where I might consider even that.

bil

But surely the bus is simple maths and a good return on the investment? Kill a hundred to save more than a thousand?

What I really don't like is that this massively hypothetical almost infinitely remote possibility is the first step on a horrific slope, that can lead inexorably to torture becoming even more routine than it is now.

Thomas Paine understood it. He pointed out that what you do to your enemies, you effective authorise them to do to you and yours.

I have tried to make people think about it, about what it would be like to authorise it. I say that if you would authorise it you should have to stand where you would see into his eyes and hear his screams. I say that if you agree with it, then morally you will have your hand on the lever. Can you or anyone really imagine what it would be like to slide under the water knowing yourself to be in the power of people who do not care what happens to you, and if you die there, it will go unnoticed? Plus, if you even partially grasped that, then how could you do that to someone?

Actually there is a clear moral line, and I would prefer to be on my side of it.

Dick Dasterdly

OK, I'd step up to torture one terrorist in order to prevent a 9/11,
....subject of course to official govt.authorisation, a copy of which would be left with every solicitor in the land.

However I have little doubt I'd have to fight my way through one hell of a queue of other more than willing volunteers, if I wished to be first in the line for the job.

jimenato

So you wouldn't give someone a good slapping to reveal the location of your grandchild that had been kidnapped by a paedophile ring?

Dick Dasterdly

I would counter my thoughts about this unpleasant incident with thoughts for the suffering of the many thousands about to suffer mass genocide.
One very clearly outweighs the other.

bil

Of course you are right. In this fantasy world, where you stand there with the keys to the kingdom, and you and only you can determine what happens, why not? Under those circumstances I would cheerfully advocate the torture of a thousand suspects to save a single life.

Why not?

Here's another. You have the terrorist suspect in your power. You have tortured him and he won't break. However, you have his ten year old son in the adjoining room.

Waterboarding the child for long enough will break the father. Have we your permission to go ahead?

bil

Of course, but here you are seperating the personal from the general.

Hurt me or mine, and if I could get away with it, I'd be happy to send such a person home in very small, salted slices.

That's simply self defence.

All this talk of terrorists is simply that people want to say "Ah, well if you woulf do that in that haypothetical case, then that gives us the green light to merrily torture away.

Why not extend the hypothetical thus? If you were elected Queen of fairyland, and there was a threat of terrorism from the gnomes, would you call to have the Butterscotch Brigade of the Fairy Army march off down the yellow brick road?

Dick Dasterdly

Bloody hell, I don't know about jimento, but I'm definitely not going to be wandering away with the fairies.
The situation I mentioned,although hypothetical was fairly clear and concise,though I accept that it would be unlikely that you would be the chosen one for the task.
I have given my view. You have given yours, albeit after much wriggling and squirming like a fish on a hook.
No doubt you could continue to vary the situation for ever and a day, eventually to a point where I myself would question whether the end justifies the means.
I don't entirely accept your point that to take such action, makes those responsible as bad as the terrorists.
It's the terrorists who present the initial threat.
No threat from the terrorists then hopefully no threat from the powers that be.
Without a firm response they would virtually take over and make everyones lives a misery,causing psychological trauma to much of the nation and horrible death and destruction to others.
If unscrupulous means have to be used to prevent this, then as I say there are circumstances where the end clearly justifies the means.
No doubt there are a thousand and one different views at which point such circumstances are reached or in other cases like yourself there are those who would just roll over and let it happen, unless possibly a family member or loved one was under threat.

rugbymatt

I love how, in the absence of anyone else to turn on you lot all turn on each other... muppets.