Torture-Poll

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 09:55

Forensic evidence has placed old Yasif Omar Hafin at the scene of one of the failed London bombings. He quite probably has information on the other Terrorists and perhaps even more.

Should the Police/Army/SAS torture Hafin as a means to the end of protecting UK citizens?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:13

I would like to end your torture of the English language - it has done nothing to deserve having such sentences beaten out of it daily.

Even when coherence escapes you always end up dragging it back to the dungeon, and I feel that one day it might give in and start naming other innocent languages for you to abuse, if only to stop the pain.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:20

You will just have to live with it Im afraid, sorry.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:26

No
It violates the principle of innocence until proven guilty
Its against the Geneva conventions
Its against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
It didn't work very well with the Guildford Four and the Birmingham six.
The use of torture in Guantanamo hasn't won us the war against terror or produced any convictions so far. It didn't stop the French getting chucked out of Algiers by 'terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters'.
The only successful use of torture I can think of was in an episode of '24', but then that was a just a piece of paranoid, delusional entertainment.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:29

xxxx wrote:.....but then that was a just a piece of paranoid, delusional entertainment.

Without which the POL forum would surely cease.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:55

xxxx wrote:No (Torture)
It violates the principle of innocence until proven guilty
Its against the Geneva conventions
Its against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Yes but what if its a chance to stop this happening to your brother, father, sister, mum, father-in-law or heaven forbid, children?

LEE HARRIS AND SAMANTHA BADHAM
Architect Lee Harris, 30, died overnight in hospital on July 15, more than a week after he was caught up in the Tube bombing near King's Cross.

He had been travelling with his partner, 36-year-old Samantha Badham, who on Saturday was also identified as a victim of the atrocities.

The couple met at Hereford Lads Club when Lee was 17 and preparing for his Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award. Samantha, then 23, was on the club's committee.

The couple normally cycled or drove to work but had taken the Tube on 7 July as they had planned a romantic dinner in the evening.

In a joint statement, their families said:

"They were a devoted couple and everyone who came into contact with them took to them immediately.

"We will miss them both and will always make them proud of us in what we do as we were proud of them."

Zargonian · Post by **Zargonian** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:08

xxxx wrote:No
It violates the principle of innocence until proven guilty
Its against the Geneva conventions
Its against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
It didn't work very well with the Guildford Four and the Birmingham six.
The use of torture in Guantanamo hasn't won us the war against terror or produced any convictions so far. It didn't stop the French getting chucked out of Algiers by 'terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters'.
The only successful use of torture I can think of was in an episode of '24', but then that was a just a piece of paranoid, delusional entertainment.

Is it okay for humans to blow up themselves and countless others?
I don't think so.
If it saves lives, torture them.
I'd rather have to live with the suffering of one human rather than many others.

A better form of torture would be for them to listen to my geetar playing.
They would soon start talking..........

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:12

Zargonian wrote:A better form of torture would be for them to listen to my geetar playing.
They would soon start talking..........

That does seem gruesome. Would you go as far as to force him to live in a flat next to the Tides Inn for a fortnight?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:21

Porty wrote: Yes but what if its a chance to stop this happening to your brother, father, sister, mum, father-in-law or heaven forbid, children?

It's not, because it doesn't actually work.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:36

Bellybabe wrote:It's not, because it doesn't actually work.

Good holiday?

If this chap were tortured, can you confirm that there is 0% chance of any life saving information emerging?

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:37

Porty wrote:
xxxx wrote:No (Torture)
It violates the principle of innocence until proven guilty
Its against the Geneva conventions
Its against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Why should he not have to suffer if the innocents have suffered? Emotion gets in the way in these arguments.

Helen Jones, who studied at Aberdeen University for part of my time there, would have probably not wished and such retribution, but I guess she is a more forgiving person than I.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4714857.stm

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:43

Yes thanks. You?

Information extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable. The human body has a tremendous drive to survive regardless of what's going on in someone's head, and will therefore usually do whatever it takes to end pain or threat of death. Most victims of torture will not reveal any information of any use, indeed the majority of torture victims in fact have no such information; but given the drive to survive, many will eventually say anything at all to end the pain, regardless of truth. History is full of examples of innocent people being convicted/imprisoned/tortured/murdered because another person named anyone they could think of simply to end their own suffering.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:54

Bellybabe wrote:Yes thanks. You?

Information extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable. The human body has a tremendous drive to survive regardless of what's going on in someone's head, and will therefore usually do whatever it takes to end pain or threat of death. Most victims of torture will not reveal any information of any use, indeed the majority of torture victims in fact have no such information; but given the drive to survive, many will eventually say anything at all to end the pain, regardless of truth. History is full of examples of innocent people being convicted/imprisoned/tortured/murdered because another person named anyone they could think of simply to end their own suffering.

Yes, it was really good.

I will take that as a No, as far as the confirmation is concerned. "Most victims" gave it away.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jul 2005, 13:55

It has been suggested that the use of torture could be controlled and limited to the most extreme and urgent circumstances. It has even been argued that, because torture is bound to happen, it is better that it be legalised and regulated than that it be denied or done clandestinely and that, when there is an absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives, coupled with probable cause (reasonable probability) that an individual has such information but is unwilling to reveal it, non-lethal torture by controlled means such as a sterilised needle under the finger nail to cause excruciating pain could be authorised by judicial warrant.

However, this and similar proposals that torture is permissible in extreme cases to prevent the imminent loss of hundreds or thousands of lives -- the "ticking time-bomb" argument -- is based on an extremely improbable and hypothetical scenario. Any would-be torturer would need to know for sure that a bomb really exists (despite the fact that no one except the terrorists have seen it), that it will explode unless it is defused, that the person being held does indeed know where the bomb is (and that it was not moved, or plans changed, when the terrorists learned he had been captured), that if he is tortured he would provide the necessary information and that it will be accurate and will enable the bomb to be defused in time, and that there is no other way to discover the bomb, and so on. Such an improbable situation cannot justify giving governments powers to license their officials to use torture or other ill-treatment. It is essential to maintain the absolute prohibition on such methods if law enforcement officials are not to be tempted to reach for them whenever other methods fail.

From here.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jul 2005, 14:02

Sorry, terribly rude of me to forget to answer the question - you're right, my answer is no, I can't confirm that there is 0% chance of life saving information being extracted. I still don't believe anyone ever has the right to torture another human being. Especially with Zarg's geetar.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 28 Jul 2005, 14:36

There is no point in my life where I am ever going to have to answer this question.
The terrorist suspect presumably is working on the basis that his/her actions will avert some harm (their cause, whatever) so if you throw laws aside because you believe you will avert harm then you are working at the same level as your adversary.
To be on rock solid ground, you'd have to know:

the suspect is a bomber
there is a bomb
its going to go off
You can stop it going off
Then perhaps you might be justified, on the principle of least harm, to start shoving the needles underneath fingernails.

As the our security services have demonstrated, they don't have a clue about what's going on, so the '24' torture scenario is unlikely to arise.

I can think of no historic example where torture has saved someone from the ticking time bomb scenario. I can however cite an example of prior knowledge of potential harm being ignored, again for a greater good.

http://www.sundayherald.com/17827

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 Jul 2005, 14:48

No, I don't agree with torture. I do agree with capital punishment though. So just do it, get it over with and then find the rest. Don't waste any more money, time or effort on him.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:03

Edit -Woops. Serves me right for not reading the whole thread first - I just rehashed what BB said about evidence from torture being unreliable.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:06

Dadaist wrote:
What has been confirmed, by experience of torture by the sadists who carry it out, is that tortured people will implicate anyone and say anything to make the pain stop. Those people can then expect a knock at the door in the small hours.

Which is a neater, more succinct way of saying what I said earlier. I think sometimes I need my own personal translator.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:07

Dadaist wrote:implicate anyone and say anything to make the pain stop.

It's a bit like that when you're in labour

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:09

Threaten me with 'physical coercion' as the Israelis so euphemistically term it or even show me a picture of a snake *shudders* and I'll tell anyone who'll listen all about the plot Porty has to take over the world......

ras · Post by **ras** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:26

Anyone know what is deemed acceptable as part of an interrogation before it is deemed torture?
I'm sure there must be a few surprises.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:43

ras wrote:Anyone know what is deemed acceptable as part of an interrogation before it is deemed torture?

Donald Rumsfeld does. And from this weeks Sunday Times, according to him it's anything up to but not inculding outright killing.

We do know there are other bombs.
There is a high probability that YHO has information about other terrorists.
There is a high probability he has info about the leaders.
There is no time for a trial.

One thing I am really miffed about is no-one getting my joke that surely would have scored 10 on the LesDawsonOmeter.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Jul 2005, 15:58

Porty wrote:One thing I am really miffed about is no-one getting my joke that surely would have scored 10 on the LesDawsonOmeter.

We were ignoring the mother-in-law gag!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 28 Jul 2005, 16:06

And I was so shocked at the misuse of 'its' by a master of language fusspottery that I failed to see the 'joke'

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 16:37

Amnesty wrote:

However, this and similar proposals that torture is permissible in extreme cases to prevent the imminent loss of hundreds or thousands of lives -- the "ticking time-bomb" argument -- is based on an extremely improbable and hypothetical scenario. Any would-be torturer would need to know for sure that a bomb really exists (WE DO)(despite the fact that no one except the terrorists have seen it (WE CAPTURED SEVERAL BOMBS THERE ARE PIC ALL OVER THE NET), that it will explode unless it is defused(ALL ACTIVATED BOMBS EXPLODE UNLESS DEFUSED), that the person being held does indeed know where the bomb is (and that it was not moved, or plans changed, when the terrorists learned he had been captured) (WOULD STILL BE VERY USEFUL TO KNOW WHERE BOMBS HAD BEEN ORWHERE THEY ARE AS TOO DANGEROUS TO MOVE), that if he is tortured he would provide the necessary information (AND HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FIND THAT OUT IF WE DONT TORTURE HIM) and that it will be accurate and will enable the bomb to be defused in time (GREAT ARGUMENT, DONT TORTURE HIM, AS EVEN ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION HE GIVES IS ACCURATE THE BOMB MIGHT GO OFF BEFORE WE GET TO IT), and that there is no other way to discover the bomb,(I DONT BELIEVE HE WILL BE TORTURED IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO QUICKLY DISCOVER THE BOMBS) and so on (AND SO ON?). Such an improbable situation cannot justify giving governments powers to license their officials to use torture or other ill-treatment. It is essential to maintain the absolute prohibition on such methods if law enforcement officials are not to be tempted to reach for them whenever other methods fail. (WHAT A LOAD OF CODSWALLOP)

Amnesty want locked up for some of the trash they peddle.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 16:54

I would like to ask the torturers if they were imagining starting from scratch with their sadistic enterprise?

That is, in their visualisations of the torture, given that we've not done it before in an official capacity, would we have to start from scratch and make all of the initial mistakes that torturers must have made over the years it has been used?

Or seeing as this terrorist subject is such a precious resource, how should we go about torturing him right?

I would suggest to the torturers (who currently number 6) that they read up on their Nazi history in order to become au fait with how to correctly pull fingernails and take out eyeballs with forks.

I'm sure there are plenty of first hand accounts of experiences with torturing and how to do it right - in fact the new POL Spanish Inquisition Group might like to start contacting surviving ex-Nazis to satiate their thirst for knowledge.

I'd also like to suggest Torture Duty, just like Jury Duty but you get to indulge yourself a bit more. What, you wanted other people to do it for you? Oh yes, the professionals. No, I think they are busy in Iraq.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:10

Do I qualify as a torturer or not Dadaist? As I said, don't waste time torturing him, just give him a lethal injection. He obviously has no problem with dying and it's a much tidier way of doing it than he had initially planned. I suppose by not killing him right away they are sort of torturing him with the anticipation - so maybe I am a torturer. You've got me all confused now

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:37

You may or may not be interested in knowing that I refuse to vote on this thread.

Porty,

if you capture said terrorist with his/her children, would you not be better to torture the children first, in front of the terrorist? Surely they would give you some information (true or false) in order to get you to stop?

And if you are torturing them as a government representative, they will need to know that you will stop at NOTHING in your search for information.

And I would have to know that that was your official line of investigation so that when I went down to the tube station I was at risk not just of 8 bullets in the head but a long and painful chat with your representatives, should they so choose.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:37

Epykat wrote:Do I qualify as a torturer or not Dadaist? As I said, don't waste time torturing him, just give him a lethal injection. He obviously has no problem with dying and it's a much tidier way of doing it than he had initially planned. I suppose by not killing him right away they are sort of torturing him with the anticipation - so maybe I am a torturer. You've got me all confused now

I'm sure you're not suggesting that our law enforcement officials commit murder or unlawful killing. I defend your democratic right to vote for a party which has the policy of bringing back the death penalty, although I'm unsure if there are any which have the policy you seem to imply, which is execution without trial. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point as it was unclear as you simply stated "don't waste time torturing him" even though getting the vital information from him was the point of the thread.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:38

I'd call that a No vote.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:45

mr magnolia wrote:You may or may not be interested in knowing that I refuse to vote on this thread.

Porty,

if you capture said terrorist with his/her children, would you not be better to torture the children first, in front of the terrorist? Surely they would give you some information (true or false) in order to get you to stop?

And if you are torturing them as a government representative, they will need to know that you will stop at NOTHING in your search for information.

And I would have to know that that was your official line of investigation so that when I went down to the tube station I was at risk not just of 8 bullets in the head but a long and painful chat with your representatives, should they so choose.

I thought about not voting too, Mr M. But Porty has not given a third option and I didn't want to add ammunition to one of the POL Spanish Inquisition Group if they chose to use abstention as proof of indifference, as opposed to disgust.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:48

mr magnolia wrote:

Porty,

if you capture said terrorist with his/her children, would you not be better to torture the children first, in front of the terrorist? Surely they would give you some information (true or false) in order to get you to stop?

They might but in my view it would be gong too far.

mr magnolia wrote: And if you are torturing them as a government representative, they will need to know that you will stop at NOTHING in your search for information.?

They would certainly need to believe that but in reality they would probably know that UK Police would have to stop short of killing.

mr magnolia wrote: And I would have to know that that was your official line of investigation so that when I went down to the tube station I was at risk not just of 8 bullets in the head but a long and painful chat with your representatives, should they so choose.

Not sure I follow your drift.

Hey, I respect your stance and beliefs. I also believe that YHO will not be tortured. We don't really gp for that sort of thing in the UK, which is why we are a destination resort for so many people and enjoy the freedoms that we do.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Jul 2005, 17:54

Porty wrote: Amnesty want locked up

Did you hear that? It's George Orwell turning in his grave!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 19:17

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: Amnesty want locked up
Did you hear that? It's George Orwell turning in his grave!

It was a joke.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Torture-Poll

Torture Probable Terrorists

Torture-Poll