...and your point is :hmm:

the name list will become available once the poll has ended in nine days, I think. At least I have ticked the box to make it a public vote, as i said in the introduction.

Just click on one of the underlined numbers and you'll get the names.

Then you can make your List ;)

Ultimately, a society which, when confronted with fear, is willing to sacrifice the notions of human rights that it took so long to arrive at and which it prides on so much is, to me, not a society worth protecting in the first place.

To me personally, it's completely unacceptable. I see scenarios where it would be strategically acceptable, but then a society which condones it through supposedly democratic apparatus has no right to call itself anything but medieval and barbaric. :hmm:

That is quite strong in words. So let me play advocatus diaboli and ask if you think the last sentence in option 6 - hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves - is less barbaric and medieval to accept!? Or is saving the lives of these hundred victims just of "strategical advantage", and no value in itself? The scenario assumes that torture would have raised the information needed to prevent this massacre.

Are you sure it is as easy as you make it sounding? :hmm:

Ah...! :) It works!

Thats the problem - some people would view the act of being put in jail for life to fall under what you describe.

-S

Not nearly as easy, no. But firstly I think anyone trying to justify it should permanently lose their moral pedestal, and secondly I think we need to be a little bit more responsible about the aims and values of the society in the context of the world we live in. I'm a little worried when a society armed with nuclear weapons is essentially willing to go back on its humanitarian principles. What would we be fighting for then? The rights of irresponsible populations of well-armed nations to eat, sleep and have sex?

If it was a direct threat... but then as I say, it's an extreme scenario you're proposing. It's inherently unlikely and certainly not worth implementing in principle. In reality, of course, when push comes to shove... things will happen. But the judgment on that would need to be made individually and not in principle. If someone indeed does have a terrorist in their hands who could give away info leading to hundreds of people being saved, it's on their conscience to act. They can't come back and say that I let them do it, nor should they be able to come back and say that the society as a whole let them do it. Then perhaps they'll act more responsibly and with the weight of the decision in their hands. But giving anyone a blanket license to break essential human rights is absolutely unacceptable, in any circumstances.

Certain circumstances may require such acts but to do it regulary is surely wrong. The type of situation that would require torture is so unlikely I can't even give a good example that would be likely to happen. Perhaps in a hostage situation where authorities have limited time to locate the victim.

It's sad that I think we live in a world where torture has a place but i'm afraid that's how it is.

And to restrict it to terrorists is wrong. How about kidnappers or criminally insane people?


The problem is, i'd like to say #6 but we don't and never have lived in that perfect world people. We ARE barbaric, we act like animals. Some of us still have compasion though.

I will gladly take a sinners life in trade for an innocent one.

I don't think you lock someone up for life without having gained the information beforehand to do so, I mean enough information to convict him of the crime in a fair trial, and if a criminal gets locked up for life, he is receiving his punishment. I mean, I wouldn't want convicted murderers roam the streets say after 5 years in jail, hell it might have been a crime of passion, but who's to say it won't happen again? Whatelse should we do with them, death sentence? You can never be 100% sure, so for me this wouldn't be an option. Maybe the days in prison will be monotonous and boring, but unless you're afraid of small rooms, I can hardly think of this as torture. I mean he is convicted of a crime, a suspect is not, if I lock up the suspect without trial and leave him unknowing of when he'll get out again, just to get information (as was done in the Eastern Block, along with sleep deprivation), then yes it's torture.

To come directly to the question at hand.

No.

Torture is no option. If we torture, we are not better then the oponent. If that means risking your own life for the risk of war or terror, I am willing to take it. Hundrets of thousand ppl put their lives at stake and often enough lost it to fight for human rights and dignity throughout the centuries.

It all comes down to the question of whats more important. Values, or life. If the answer is life, then everything's exuseable for something thats ending nevertheless sooner or later.

Are we talking about physical & mental torture as one or separate?

Torture can be many things, for example your restrained under a dripping tap that drips on your head which is not really physical but can be after a number of hours mental torture.

I have two reasons for voting against torture under any circumstances.

1. If I condone it for my own reasons, I have no basis for criticizing others who do it for theirs. So, then, torture, by anyone for any reason, becomes defensible.

2. In order for torture to occur, you need people willing to carry it out. That in turn means that a society that tortures people provides a haven for those who are good and skilled at committing torture. One can even see where it encourages such people to work to develop their craft to the utmost. I do not want to live in a society that preserves such people and gives them security to practice their craft. Those people are just as undesirable as those they torture, to my mind.

Walking the moral high ground means exposing yourself to risk, that's a given. I understand that, but I find the alternative requires me to adopt a stance that I would rather not live with. So my choice is made by that.

P.S. as others have said, I too do not feel that torture is a reliable nor effective means of intelligence gathering. Given that, my two reasons above don't even enter into it - it's a waste of time, effort and resources that could be better used gathering more reliable information in the first place.

I ordered option 6 with special fried rice, home delivery. ;)

Isn't that a stroman? :hmm: