Waterboarding

[flip_flop]

If we assume, for the sake of the argument, that George Bush is telling the truth in his memoirs where he says the use of waterboarding prevented a number of terrorist attacks, including attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow, then the ends justify the means, don't they?

[youngmafbog]

I personally have doubts over any information obtained via torture. I guess it depends on the level of torture and of course one mans torture is another mans persusion.

If you count disorientting someone has torture then I would have to say says the end justifies the means, but naything with pain is unlikley to get you what you want. Unless of course you just want to hear 'the right answer'

[modeller]

Ah mc mouse so you recognise there is a dividing line . How about withholding a drug from a junkie. Is that OK to save lives ?

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// "If we had have stayed out of the Afghanistan adventure, would we have been the target for terrorist attacks in the first place?" ///

The terrorist attacks had started (Sept 11 2001) before we began the Afghanistan adventure (Oct 7 2001).

[McMouse]

Modeller.......the original question was about end and means and my response was that I don't agree with torture.

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// I think it very unlikely that waterboarding has actually stopped any terrorist attack.///

You have inside knowledge of what the security forces achieve then?

[anotheoldgit]

McMouse

/// There is a difference between interrogation and torture ///

One could interrogate someone continuously, so when does interrogation become torture.

[modeller]

Not quite mc mouse it said # then the ends justify the means, don't they? #

You have left out the word justify and that's the point . We may not agree with torture at a moral level but can it be justified to save lives or maybe it depends on how many and who they are.
Could you and others who said No let your own familie be killed , tortured , defiled by sticking to your principles ?

sandyRoe
/// I think it very unlikely that waterboarding has actually stopped any terrorist attack.///
During WWII on both sides thousands of lives were saved because some level of torture was used on spies and resistance fighters. You may not like it but torture of some sort is used because it more often works than not . Just look at yourown family and hope you are never faced with the choice.

[123everton]

The 1 in 10 figure was produced via wikileaks, and explained in Channel 4's 'Dispatches' programme, they were arrested in numerous places within Iraq (they just so happened to live there), these events would be repeated upon release and undoubtedly aided the rise of the insurgency.
The facts of extraordinary rendition, the facts of secret prisons, the facts of internment added to the denial of much of it aid and abet terrorism, our complicity in torture is killing and wounding our own troops and our own civilians, our torturers have our blood on their hands.
We cannot as a civilised nation of civilised people call others barbaric when we indulge in the medieval practice of torture.
Ask yourself a question, if you're son was a torturer, would you be proud?

[modeller]

#Ask yourself a question, if you're son was a torturer, would you be proud? # No !

If your son's action saved the lives of 6000 people would you be proud ?

[naomi24]

Thanks for answering that Everton. One in 10 Iraqis is an awful lot of Iraqis isn't it. For one amazing moment there I thought you were a member of CTU - Jack Bauer no less - but it turns out that Wikileaks and Channel 4 are the ones who are privy to the secrets of US intelligence. That makes more sense. :o)

I'll answer your question. Never mind torture - if my son killed a hundred terrorists and thus prevented 9/11 or 7/7 happening I would be absolutely ecstatic.

[Gromit]

AOG

Depends who you mean by 'we' were attacked.

The USA was attacked on 9/11/2001 but we (the UK) was not targeted until 2005, four years AFTER we had gone into Afghanistan to fight for the Americans.

[ChuckFickens]

But how about if your son had killed 100 people, 99 of them were innocent but 1 happened to be a terrorist that stopped 9/11?

[andy-hughes]

Ex-President Bush is a simple soul.

He likes to live a simple life where everything is clearly defined - who are the good guys, who are the bad guys.

That's why he talks in terms of 'getting the job done' - like it's as simple as putting up a set of shelves.#

In George's world you can excuse torture on the basis that 'lives were saved' based on nothing more flimsy that a wish for it to be true.

So, flip-flop, the answer is no.

[ummmm]

3,000 to 99....

[jno]

or indeed if your son was one of the innocent 99 (or the only innocent one, for that matter). Sacrificed for a higher cause perhaps?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - when does interogation become torture?

I know you are being sarcastic here, but in case anyone is reading your question thinking you mean it to be answered -

Asking what time it is - that;s iterrogation.

Asking what time it is while i have electrodes attatched to your genitals and my hand on the switch and a nasty look in my eye that suggests I'd beter get the answer that i wanrt - that's torture.

Simple.

[123everton]

That's not what I asked.
How do you establish whether someone is or isn't a terrorist, via torture?
If you arrest say 100 Afghans, 1 of whom is a terrorist, does the suffering of 99 innocent people justify the information gleaned?
If your son was doing the torturing, would you still be proud?
Those 99 would be embittered by the experience, if 5 of those take up arms against us, how many will have been saved?

[China Doll]

I think if I was being totured then I would probably confess to anything you wanted me to regardless of whether I did it or not just to make the torture stop. So to that end, I don't think torture justifies the means because I'm not sure how reliable torture actually is as an interogation method.

[123everton]

Cross posted with some others there, spooky...