Terrorists get hold of WMDS?

A

Ausinus

#41
Would anyone here agree to killing 10 men if it meant it would save 1000?
If they had been given fair trials, and had been found guilty based upon viable evidence, then yes.
 
#45
Yeah, kinda like THEY do.:rolleyes:
Sorry, but that comment leads me to believe you have no idea what we are talking about.

First off, any people who might be tortured are people who we suspect have information which is useful for our purposes.

They have not been convicted of anything. Had they been, they would be in prison, or they would have been executed.

So we don't even know what 'they' would do.

A crime suspect who is interrogated by the police, is not automatically deemed guilty at law of anything. Until proven otherwise he is merely 'helping the police with their inquiries'.

Whether it be a suspected criminal or a captured combatant, the person is liable to internationally accepted interrogation techniques, but is also entitled to the protection of international law and the Geneva conventions. He is also entitled to the protections offered by the Declaration on Human Rights. None of these allow any form of torture or suffering - physical or psychological.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, it doesn't matter what this nebulous 'they' do, it is what we do which defines us a civilised people or not.
 
K

Kyryahn

#46
thats the most retarded analogy ever,. The father isnt being forced to roll the dye he can simply walk away. Stop trying to beat me you know im rite. What worse? One scumbag gets emotionally and physically scared or the death of innocent ppl? Theres only one correct choice.
The analogy was just to show how your question is flawed, because you ask us to make a choice based on the result of this choice, but I wanted to prove in the real world when you're making the choice you can"t be sure of the result (you can't be sure he's guilty, he knows the info, it will save lives etc), thus the result can't be used to determine at the moment you're making the choice if it"s the good one to be made. I admit I wasn't very clear and maybe too "abstract", but I think it makes logical sense and it's not retarded.
 
I

Invayne

#47
Sorry, but that comment leads me to believe you have no idea what we are talking about.
Assuming that you're talking about Islamic terrorist assholes, that's who I meant by "they". "They" have no problem torturing innocent people TO DEATH, so why should we be concerned about them? Yeah, I'm hateful. Get over it.
 
#48
Assuming that you're talking about Islamic terrorist assholes, that's who I meant by "they". "They" have no problem torturing innocent people TO DEATH, so why should we be concerned about them? Yeah, I'm hateful. Get over it.
No, we weren't specifically discussing Islamic terrorists. We were discussing methods of interrogation, and what may be deemed torture.

Whether the person concerned is a traffic offender or a suspected Islamic terrorist, the same principles apply. If we are to consider ourselves a civilised society, we do not practice or condone torture.

And in case you are in doubt, torture is any interrogative procedure which inflicts pain or suffering (physical or psychological). This is specifically prohibited by the Geneva conventions.

So a discussion about whether they do this to others, or whether they deserve this treatment, is irrelevant to the matter under examination.

Torture = big no no.
 
J

johnlocke

#49
Assuming that you're talking about Islamic terrorist assholes, that's who I meant by "they". "They" have no problem torturing innocent people TO DEATH, so why should we be concerned about them? Yeah, I'm hateful. Get over it.
So, in essence you are arguing either that we should only torture those whom we believe would use torture, OR you are arguing the ends justifies the means...

... so the fact that one of the reasons we oppose them is BECAUSE we don't do these things is irrelevent?