[Drake]

Then interrogation has no use.

I know a pack of smokes and Spiderman 2 wouldn't do it for me, if I were a martyr terrorist, that's for sure. I'd enjoy your hospitality, give you plausible - but false - information, and then laugh in your face when the bombs blew up. And after that, it doesn't matter what you do to me, by your hypothesis I am an uncrackable martyr who only wants to see your people dead.

Sprinkles interrogation and torture can be very different. For example in moderation I do not consider the items on this list to be torture Top 11 Methods of Interrogation - Listverse.

What I consider torture is beatigns, shaking, rape, maiming, random executions and such. There was an Israeli intelligence officer who had developed a quite successful interrogation technique. After weeks of being interrogated by Israeli intelligence, the subject was then moved into general population of the jail where they where being held. The jail itself was completely bugged but had several listening devices that where meant to be found, this gave the prisoner a feeling of security in that they thought there where areas of th jail that they could talk without being overheard. Another important part was that the jail itself where filled with willing prisoners that where working for the Israelis. They would greet the released prisoner and apploud them for withstanding the interrogation, and after a while would get out of the prisoner what he had told the Israelis during interrogation, and many things that where held back.


Sadly there is no magic pill that will instantly turn someone into a truth telling machine (damn movies lied to me). But the combination of stressing a prisoner then providing them with a semblance of security has shown to work well. All of these methods do take time though.

[peterk]

Amanda32

Dennis Kuchinich is the last person to take seriously. The democrats didn't take him seriously because there was no impeacement process even started and we all know even the barest hint illegality on the part of President Bush would have had the democrates salivating. The democrates went along with the war in Iraq and when things got tough they manufactured a BIG LIE .It was the most cynical, hypocritical,and possibly treasonous display I have ever seen. All to win an election. The fact that Obama is following Bush's policies is vindication of Bush.

[snail]

It is never okay to cause intentional suffering against someone's will in order to gain control through force, regardless of the circumstances. This applies to many things, from child-training to self-defense situations. Violence is always unacceptable.

[peterk]

It is never okay to cause intentional suffering against someone's will in order to gain control through force, regardless of the circumstances. This applies to many things, from child-training to self-defense situations. Violence is always unacceptable.

So in the case of the hypothetical WMD hidden in NYC, You would just let tens of thousands of people die rather than try to save them by any means possible? I find that morally the equivalent of murder. Think of all the suffering you would have caused people who were just wounded.

[snail]

So in the case of the hypothetical WMD hidden in NYC, You would just let tens of thousands of people die rather than try to save them by any means possible? I find that morally the equivalent of murder. Think of all the suffering you would have caused people who were just wounded.

The end does not justify the means. I would not be responsible for their deaths if someone else killed them. The person committing the crime would be responsible. If I prevented their deaths by committing atrocities, I would be guilty for my own sadistic behaviors regardless of whether the outcome was positive from a utilitarian standpoint. Of course, I would do everything I could, within ethical limits, to prevent the mass murder, but I would not sell my soul to do it. I would be little different from those whose crimes I was trying to prevent if I were willing to use violence. There has to be a way to determine which side is morally right, and if the "good guys" use the same means as the "bad guys," there is no true distinction. Each side will feel like the "good guys" while committing evil acts against the other. Anyone who would use torture against an enemy does not deserve to defeat that enemy.

[peterk]

The end does not justify the means. I would not be responsible for their deaths if someone else killed them. The person committing the crime would be responsible. If I prevented their deaths by committing atrocities, I would be guilty for my own sadistic behaviors regardless of whether the outcome was positive from a utilitarian standpoint. Of course, I would do everything I could, within ethical limits, to prevent the mass murder, but I would not sell my soul to do it. I would be little different from those whose crimes I was trying to prevent if I were willing to use violence. There has to be a way to determine which side is morally right, and if the "good guys" use the same means as the "bad guys," there is no true distinction. Each side will feel like the "good guys" while committing evil acts against the other. Anyone who would use torture against an enemy does not deserve to defeat that enemy.

Sometimes the end does justify the means especially when its stopping mass murder. So your conscience would bother you if you acted like a "bad guy" but less so than if you let mass murder happen through conscious inaction. I find that extreme indeed.

[amanda32]

Amanda32

Dennis Kuchinich is the last person to take seriously. The democrats didn't take him seriously because there was no impeacement process even started and we all know even the barest hint illegality on the part of President Bush would have had the democrates salivating. The democrates went along with the war in Iraq and when things got tough they manufactured a BIG LIE .It was the most cynical, hypocritical,and possibly treasonous display I have ever seen. All to win an election. The fact that Obama is following Bush's policies is vindication of Bush.

Do you think Bush is a Christian? Is that why you're defending him? If so, why is he in Skull and Bones secret society and why did he go to Bohemian Grove to worship Molech with all the other elites?
Do you think Obama is a stand up guy too? A good example of a Christian? You should look into that, you might be surprised what you find.

You hinted before at sth. about my "hating my government". Well, I'm Canadian but yeah, I hate the Canadian government and the American Government -- the people at the top who are doing these things. I think America and Canada are great countries with great people and these criminals are running them into the ground trying to create a dictatorship and police state and they're using fear and hatred to do it.

I also don't like the religion of Islam, like you -- but the people are different; they are human beings and no human being should be tortured like this because a corrupt governement tells us this is who we should hate. I do not equate patriotism or love of country with having to agree with illegal wars or torture the way Bush and Obama want me to.

About 3,000 people died in the towers on 9/11 -- but the war in Iraq has killed just as many or more Americans now. It's been 9 years! The soldiers are going for unpresidented numbers of tours of duty, they are using hired contractors who have no one to answer to. They have set up secret prisons all over where they're holding people without trial, indefinitely and torturing and killing them. They're even using sexual torture! This is insanity!! It's evil and I cannot for a second believe this is sth. God approves of, at all.

[skycloud86]

Torture is always wrong. If you're being tortured, you're going to say anything to get the torture to stop, and not only is it unreliable, it's barbaric and inhumane. Even if the person being tortured is a possible terrorist, what makes the act of torture any less of a crime?

[skycloud86]

Sometimes the end does justify the means especially when its stopping mass murder. So your conscience would bother you if you acted like a "bad guy" but less so than if you let mass murder happen through conscious inaction. I find that extreme indeed.

No, the end never justifies the means because if it did, that would justify all sorts of horrific atrocities in order to achieve something.

You don't need to act anything like a "bad guy" (interesting how you seem to think that violence and other "bad" things are the only way to solve a problem or stop some tragedy from occurring) to stop mass murder.

[peterk]

Skycloud86,

I guess if you were in charge you'd read the terrorest his rights' give, him a cup of tea, and with a stiff upper lip wait for the big event.