kevthedee Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I'd make them spend a say reading your posts,they'd be singing like a budgie before the day is out. This would probably break some human rights law,sadly. Happy to help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 You'd have to torture them first, and if they knew nothing, apologise.Is that not our policy just now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hasn't it been proven that torture doesn't reallu work for gathering intelligence ? Someone who is being repeatedly drowned for days will tell you any old shite to make it stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hasn't it been proven that torture doesn't reallu work for gathering intelligence ? Someone who is being repeatedly drowned for days will tell you any old shite to make it stop. The British Army has always claimed that, though it subsequently turns out they've used torture in just about every conflict they've been involved in. The softly softly patient approach of interrogation probably yields more useful intelligence but you need a lot of highly intelligent and patient multilingual interrogators for that, it's more practical just to torture them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The British Army has always claimed that, though it subsequently turns out they've used torture in just about every conflict they've been involved in. The softly softly patient approach of interrogation probably yields more useful intelligence but you need a lot of highly intelligent and patient multilingual interrogators for that, it's more practical just to torture them. ^^^^Former-Army-torturer, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If I thought it would work, I'd have no problem with torture. The thing being, what use is torturing someone who is innocent and knows f**k all? They might give you as many names as you want but they will be more folk who know nothing. More for you to torture to give you more names of more people who know Nothing. You've also got the problem in this case that you're paying some dodgy and untrustworthy folk to deliver you suspects. Unless you have any other evidence against them, how can you know they're not just picking up some random? If you have 13 years to build case and can't find anytjng, it looks lie you might have been torturing an innocent guy. (of course he might not be innocent - I have no way of knowin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I'm hugely anti-torture, but I can understand that in a hypothetical ticking bomb situation that that intelligence or military officers might need to be pragmatic in getting answers quickly. What is completely unacceptable is for it to be routine government policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If I thought it would work, I'd have no problem with torture. The thing being, what use is torturing someone who is innocent and knows f**k all? They might give you as many names as you want but they will be more folk who know nothing. More for you to torture to give you more names of more people who know Nothing. You've also got the problem in this case that you're paying some dodgy and untrustworthy folk to deliver you suspects. Unless you have any other evidence against them, how can you know they're not just picking up some random? If you have 13 years to build case and can't find anytjng, it looks lie you might have been torturing an innocent guy. (of course he might not be innocent - I have no way of knowin) Disturbing to think you could be describing the Witchfinder General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Sad but not surprising to see the usual suspects completely missing the point. 1. If you suspect someone of committing an offence you try that person and only incarcerate him/her if found guilty. Holding someone prisoner without a trial is the antithesis of justice; accepting it for any alleged 'offenders' flies in the face of a fair and just legal system and brings into question the democratic foundation of the country carry out the act. 2. The issue of the 'legitimacy' of torture is an interesting one. I'm sure an apparently convincing case could be made if there was strong evidence to suggest it worked; as others have said all the available evidence suggests it doesn't work. However the legitimacy and the legality of torture are not the same thing. The U.S. and the U.K. are signatories to international agreements that prohibit the use of torture or aid and abet torture. Politicians who have approved these practices should be held accountable for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dipped Flake Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Because they would be known, and known to be in possession of information. Real life is not like the bill where 5 minutes of questioning sees the bad guy break down and tell all. this guy had 13 years of torture and not one iota of evidence that he was a terrorist or knew about terrorist activities was ever obtained. But at least some sadists got their rocks off so that's ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Bojangles Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.