Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Aside from the moral dimension, which I find quite disgusting but is probably beyond the lilmited comprehension of George Dubya Bush, I wonder how many more lives have been lost as a result of handing terrorist leaders free propaganda by torturing people.
Is there not some humane institution where GWB can be kept for the protection of himself and the world?
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014
Aside from the moral dimension, which I find quite disgusting
Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.
Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.
Drawing on your years in the forces there SAS? No, I didn't think so.
Is it just a numbers game then? How many falsely accused people is it ok to torture to find one person with information?
Well perhaps the criteria for being a torturee, to coin a word, should be set quite high. e.g. that Khalid guy, Head of operations for al Qaeda. No problem with torturing him.
Probably not worth torturing the foot soldiers anyway.
Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.
You can never prove it's effective, because you're trying to prove a negative; that someone would not have done something IF you had tortured him, or even that someone WOULD have done something if you had not tortured him. Impossible to prove.
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014
Well perhaps the criteria for being a torturee, to coin a word, should be set quite high. e.g. that Khalid guy, Head of operations for al Qaeda. No problem with torturing him.
Probably not worth torturing the foot soldiers anyway.
So after someone's already convicted, you can torture them? How do you get the confession to convict them without torturing an innocent person... that whole innocent-till-proven-guilty thing really gets in the way.
Comment