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?

[razza]

Yes

[boxtops]

It's still torture. We condemn other regimes for torture, we shouldn't do it ourselves.

[naomi24]

If it prevented hundreds or thousands being killed, yes.

[ummmm]

Yes.

[jake-the-peg]

That's an awfully big if - don't you think?

Your question makes that assumption to justify the inevitable answer that you want.

Suppose for the sake of argument assassinating George Bush would save the lives of millions - the ends justify the means don't they?

[flip_flop]

Jake - yes of course it is a big 'if', which is why I've tried to frame the question in such a way that people can answer it - for the sake of the argument - as if it were true.

[jake-the-peg]

But that's half the argument against gaining information from torture - there are huge problems with its reliability.

So by accepting his claim at face value you're effectively telling your debating opponents to fight with one arm tied behind their back

[DrFilth]

if you stick my head under water for a minute i will tell you liverpool won the world cup and that i speak to martians once a month.
plus anything else you would like to hear

[flip_flop]

This is purely a 'what-if' question.

If there was cast-iron, 100% reliable, irrefutable evidence that terrorist attacks were avoided, and the avoidance was directly attributable to information gained due to waterboarding, would you consider the use of waterboarding justified Jake?

[Gromit]

If we are asking "If" questions, how about...

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

[naomi24]

Good grief! It's a simple hypothetical question requiring a yes or no answer. I can't see why people feel they have to make a meal of it.

[Gromit]

naomi24

Have a go at answering my question above yours with a Yes or No...

[jake-the-peg]

Because it's a ridiculous attempt to make people agree with you based on an invalid - or at least unsupported hypothesis.

tell you what flip-flop - I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

If allowing child sex offenders free reign in our schools prevented attacks on Londoners would you support it?

No fuss simple yes or no hypothetical question

[naomi24]

Gromit, your question isn't the subject of this thread - and my post didn't refer to you alone. Incidentally Jake, your question isn't the subject of this thread either.

[jake-the-peg]

OK - Let's rephrase the question and see if this helps.

Let's say "is utility the only grounds to oppose torture?"

I'd say no there are other reasons too

Firstly there's the validity of your cause - if you want to present yourself as fighting a just war you can't go round routinely torturing people for information it undermines your cause.

Secondly it inhibit's you ability to get information from other sources - it's hard to get informants and spies if you have a reputation for torturing people

Thirdly there is a risk of an "arms race" in treatment of prisoners - not such a concern in this conflict but imagine for example the Falklands - if we tortured Argentinians do you think there would be any hesitation in the same treatment being given to our troops.

Finally there is widespread disgust at such methods in most of the civilised world - using such methods lowers our standing in such countries in the same way that it lowers Israels standing when they murder people abroard

I think the key here is "routine" there is a case for such methods being used in individual specific conditions and responsibility for making that specific decision needs to be shouldered by a politician openly due to the severe ramifications that it cold have

What was going on at Guantanimo was routine and non-specific

[flip_flop]

That's an awfully big assumption Jake. I haven't given my opinion one way or another.

[Gromit]

Well done naomi24, you didn't fall into the trap, just like others didn't fall for the one in the question.

[flip_flop]

There is no trap in the question.

[Loosehead]

This is a tough one, is Bush telling the truth? Probably he is telling what he conceives to be the effect of waterborading. Can we ever say that an actual atrocity was prevented? Sitting on the fence a bit here because I do accept that under torture the victim will say pretty much anything so I think most would say that the information is unreliable. However if, hypothetically, valid information was obtained and an atrocity was actually prevented then there is something to be said for the method.

[Loosehead]

naomi, this can never be a yes or no answer, there are just too many "if's, buts and maybe's", so anyone has to qualify their view.