Are we admitting that we did torture inmates of Guantanemo?

stulid said:
nothing wrong with a bit of torture, its the paying them millions of pounds in compensation after that gets me!!! the money will only be used to fund more terrorists.
Click to expand...

well if they were not terrorists before we got them now they have the motivation and soon funds to have a pop back at us...

they were soldiers not terrorists anyway? in my mind a terrorist is someone that like to blow up the general population rather than try and fight off an invading army?
 
edscdk said:
If they have the info in that case they will (most likley) tell you?

you can verify is a base is or is not where they said, if its not you dont loose anything if it is well you got your info...

obviously torturing a confession and anything that cannot be verified out of someone is pointless
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone will stand up to the torture i have in mind.

Just because it cannot be verified doesnt mean its pointless, there is a difference between actionable intel, and just jibba jabba, put lots of it into a computer and you will make a picture eventually.

Forcing someone to confess is pointless, they will be executed eventually regardless if infact they are innocent.
 
Lets say that our intelligence services receive information form the CIA that there is an attack bomb attack planned in London today. They also admit that the information was retrieved as a result of torturing an individual.

Would people expect our intelligence services not to act because of the way the information was obtained?
 
OldCoals said:
Lets say that our intelligence services receive information form the CIA that there is an attack bomb attack planned in London today. They also admit that the information was retrieved as a result of torturing an individual.

Would people expect our intelligence services not to act because of the way the information was obtained?
Click to expand...

Show me a single example of that course of events having occurred.

The ticking time bomb is a thought experiement, with little practical application in the real world.

24 this is not.
 
edscdk said:
we start a war and kill / maim thousands of people, yet we are concerned about pouring water over a few people to "trick" them into thinking they are drowning so they might tell us something useful....

which one would you rather have done

1) water boarded
2) have a bullet rip your insides out and be left for hours in agony until you slowley bleed to death
3) loose you legs and arm, and get half of whats left of your body burnt, and spend the rest of your life as a criple...
4) jsut be shot and killed

I would not vote to torure people usually, however in a war you are trying to KILL people so a little bit of torture is the lesser of too evils...
Click to expand...

Some of us think we shouldn't do either...

Anyway. Torture is illegal and arguably immoral, and in any case the torture of enemy combatants in a war is in violation of the Hague convention. Wars at least have rules. If you want to talk about torture, at least compare it to something similarly illegal in wars - cluster bombs, bombing innocents, concentration camps, etc...
 
vonhelmet said:
Show me a single example of that course of events having occurred.

The ticking time bomb is a thought experiement, with little practical application in the real world.

24 this is not.
Click to expand...

Can we be sure that information received as a result of torture hasn't saved lives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom