Turn on thread page Beta

Torture watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    That's funny because...?
    I think the point is that being "killed" is not what ends most people's lives in the sense that they merely die - not are "killed" by some postive act.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    That's all in the definition. Even if you die of old age, you are killed by a heart attack.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "Killed by old age"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    That's because you watch 24
    No, that's because the world is a little more complicated than "torture is always wrong"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    With regards to legalising torture in Britain:

    I can't claim to know much about the legal system so correct me if I'm wrong, but from the little I've seen it seems to me that ultimately the legal system upholds the greater good over individual liberties. For example, murderers have their rights taken away and are imprisoned. In both cases - legal torture and imprisoning a murderer - there is a possibility of error and yet the law takes away the individual's liberties for the greater good.

    As such, by that same vein, surely the law should allow torture of suspects if there is either:

    a) a strong chance they have information which could prevent the loss of lives of at least one person, maybe more (and security services aren't exactly going to arrest people and torture them if they don't have any ties at all to terrorist activity)
    b) a slim chance that they know some crucial information, if they are the only lead the security services have.

    I think somebody said that if you legalised torture the government would just abuse that power, but no British government or security service is going to risk the negative publicity which will arise if they torture someone for absolutely no reason. Equally, the British government and police force would not arrest and imprison a man for murder if they didn't have at least a minimal amount of evidence.

    So really, by not legalising torture, the legal system is being unprincipled and not following its philosophies to their logical conclusion.

    Aside from that, can somebody tell me why the British security services won't (officially) accept evidence derived from torture? The governments who sanction torture will not change their ways, so torture will still continue, and they will not have potentially crucial evidence to work on (even if there is a possibility that it is wrong). By accepting the evidence, they are not necessarily condoning torture, but merely acting in the interests of the people of their own country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Aside from that, can somebody tell me why the British security services won't (officially) accept evidence derived from torture? The governments who sanction torture will not change their ways, so torture will still continue, and they will not have potentially crucial evidence to work on (even if there is a possibility that it is wrong). By accepting the evidence, they are not necessarily condoning torture, but merely acting in the interests of the people of their own country.
    But they would be condoning torture. They're using information that has been gathered from the use of torture which means that they coinsider torture to be an appropriate means of retriving information. Surely it's incredible hypocritical to say we don't approve of torture but we're quite happy to use information from other countries that do. Then you wouldn't you get people being sent to countries that practise torture or countries increasing their use of torture to earn 'brownie points' with the UK.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Also, information obtained from torture is not the most reliable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    What are you trying to get me to say?


    Correct.
    So its morally wrong to save lives. Hmm, I dont know many people with that sort of moral compass.

    People wilfully betray their morals every day. I would never be morally for it. I will always be morally against it.
    You've said you'd be wilfully against it, so how are you betraying your morals? Are you now saying you'd wilfully practice torture if the situation demanded it and that this decision to do so would be the wrong decision?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    But they would be condoning torture. They're using information that has been gathered from the use of torture which means that they coinsider torture to be an appropriate means of retriving information. Surely it's incredible hypocritical to say we don't approve of torture but we're quite happy to use information from other countries that do. Then you wouldn't you get people being sent to countries that practise torture or countries increasing their use of torture to earn 'brownie points' with the UK.
    They wouldn't be condoning torture, they would just be utilising the extra information at their disposal which came about as a result of another country condoning torture. I doubt many countries would use torture solely to earn brownie points with the UK, but either way, the principle is clearly there anyway, so us accepting their information will not make a blind bit of difference. What if the British needed some crucial information which another security service knew they had but could not divulge because of this idiotic principle? Not condoning torture in one's own country is an acceptable statement to make, but not accepting information derived from torture in other countries is just ridiculous. As for Zoe's point, information derived from torture is of course not always reliable, but surely it is better to have as much information as possible at your disposal either way?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    They wouldn't be condoning torture, they would just be utilising the extra information at their disposal which came about as a result of another country condoning torture. I doubt many countries would use torture solely to earn brownie points with the UK, but either way, the principle is clearly there anyway, so us accepting their information will not make a blind bit of difference. What if the British needed some crucial information which another security service knew they had but could not divulge because of this idiotic principle? Not condoning torture in one's own country is an acceptable statement to make, but not accepting information derived from torture in other countries is just ridiculous. As for Zoe's point, information derived from torture is of course not always reliable, but surely it is better to have as much information as possible at your disposal either way?
    Supposing I don't believe in animal testing. Is it ok for me to use products tested on animals because I didn't actually do it myself? Is that what you're saying? If the UK were to accept information retrived from torture then they would be in no position to turn around and criticise that country for using torture - which I'm sure is against 'international law', have we not signed some treating condoning it?

    Picture this, two countries want to establish trade in arms with the UK. One country strongly condones torture, the other picks up some UK suspects and tortures some interesting information at of them. Now which is the government gona choose and what would there reasoning be? Look at is it Syria? There were a little bit dodgy not so long ago what with the whole nuclear weapons thing but now their relations with the US have improved and oh look the US have torture centres there. Coincidence? OK so the UK doesn't have as much to offer as the US but still I think that point remains valid - countries will torture to receive benefits.

    Is that information really better? What if it just sets up a wild goose chase? I dunno about you but if I was being tortured I would just admit to anything they threw at me just to make it stop.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    Supposing I don't believe in animal testing. Is it ok for me to use products tested on animals because I didn't actually do it myself? Is that what you're saying?
    Yes that's what I'm saying.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    If the UK were to accept information retrived from torture then they would be in no position to turn around and criticise that country for using torture - which I'm sure is against 'international law', have we not signed some treating condoning it?
    The UK shouldn't criticise other countries for using torture to extract information.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    Picture this, two countries want to establish trade in arms with the UK. One country strongly condones torture, the other picks up some UK suspects and tortures some interesting information at of them. Now which is the government gona choose and what would there reasoning be? Look at is it Syria? There were a little bit dodgy not so long ago what with the whole nuclear weapons thing but now their relations with the US have improved and oh look the US have torture centres there. Coincidence? OK so the UK doesn't have as much to offer as the US but still I think that point remains valid - countries will torture to receive benefits.
    Would the UK torture to receive benefits from the US? No. Because in principle they are against it. Any country which tortures to receive benefits, is not directly opposed to the principle of torture. Therefore they would do it anyway.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    Is that information really better? What if it just sets up a wild goose chase? I dunno about you but if I was being tortured I would just admit to anything they threw at me just to make it stop.
    And if you knew the truth you might say that as well. Better safe than sorry. If another country is going to torture suspects to extract information, the British security services would be in a much better position if they took into account that information, rather than sticking so firmly to their idiotic principles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)

    The UK shouldn't criticise other countries for using torture to extract information.
    What dispite the fact that the UN clearly prohibits it?

    [QUOTE=The Ace is Back]Would the UK torture to receive benefits from the US? No. Because in principle they are against it. Any country which tortures to receive benefits, is not directly opposed to the principle of torture. Therefore they would do it anyway. [QUOTE]

    It would surely encourage them and hind any social progression that would include abolishing an inhumane and internationally outawed practice. Surely not a good thing.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    And if you knew the truth you might say that as well. Better safe than sorry. If another country is going to torture suspects to extract information, the British security services would be in a much better position if they took into account that information, rather than sticking so firmly to their idiotic principles.
    If I was an Islamic militant with a strong belief in Allah and even stronger hatement towards the West then I would say a hell of a lot before I even contemplated saying the truth. I remembering hearing something about how one terrorist suspect 'confession' was basically the plot to Godzilla. Now how idiotic would the BSS look following that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    What dispite the fact that the UN clearly prohibits it?
    I don't hear them saying much to the US, their number one ally, about it, so they have absolutely no right to criticise any other country for it. There are also different extremities of torture. I have in mind regulated torture in the form of injections or sleep deprivation, not simulated drownings and the like.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I don't hear them saying much to the US, their number one ally, about it, so they have absolutely no right to criticise any other country for it. There are also different extremities of torture. I have in mind regulated torture in the form of injections or sleep deprivation, not simulated drownings and the like.
    The UK have frequently joined all the nations and NGOs in criticising Guantanamo - well Blair hasn't but his missus has. And we're claiming to be ignorant of rendition flights.
    Oh you mean that kind of torture because that kind is just perfectly fine and will never open doors to other more extreme forms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    The UK have frequently joined all the nations and NGOs in criticising Guantanamo - well Blair hasn't but his missus has. And we're claiming to be ignorant of rendition flights.
    So no, the UK hasn't.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    Oh you mean that kind of torture because that kind is just perfectly fine and will never open doors to other more extreme forms.
    Yep that's what I mean.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    So no, the UK hasn't.


    Yep that's what I mean.
    Actually they have.

    You get I was being sarcastic...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So it's morally wrong to save lives. Hmm, I dont know many people with that sort of moral compass.
    Not at the expense of certain things, no.

    You've said you'd be wilfully against it, so how are you betraying your morals?
    You seem to change your use of the word 'wilfully' every time you use it, so I'll ignore because your abuse of its definition has rendered it useless.

    Are you now saying you'd practice torture if the situation demanded it and that this decision to do so would be the wrong decision?
    That's what I was always saying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    Actually they have.
    I'm not reading that whole thing so kindly quote the section where the UK directly and openly attacks the US for using torture.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    [You get I was being sarcastic...
    No ****. I wasn't. If you define restrictions on legal torture, then in almost all instances they will not be broken. Look at the laws for arresting and imprisoning murderers - can you do so without any evidence? No. Does the government do so? No. Thus why should it be any different with legally defined torture?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I'm not reading that whole thing so kindly quote the section where the UK directly and openly attacks the US for using torture.


    No ****. I wasn't. If you define restrictions on legal torture, then in almost all instances they will not be broken. Look at the laws for arresting and imprisoning murderers - can you do so without any evidence? No. Does the government do so? No. Thus why should it be any different with legally defined torture?
    Blair has not openly and directly criticised the US as far as I'm aware - that's not his style. He has, as you can see from skimming the link, made it clear that he is against torture e.g.:
    all I know is that we should keep within the law at all times, and the notion that I, or the Americans, or anybody else approve or condone torture, or ill treatment, or degrading treatment, that is completely and totally out of order in any set of circumstances.
    True all he has said about GB is that it's an anomaly but I'm pretty sure that the Law Lords have directly criticised it along with other important people within the UK political scene e.g. the cabinet minister.

    I'm going with the thin end of the wedge argument. Once you allow certain kind of torture it becomes easier to allow more extreme methods. Do you, for instance, think that there is no link between Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghrab(sp?)? I'm no expect on the US army's treatment of prisoners tbh though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    Blair has not openly and directly criticised the US as far as I'm aware - that's not his style. He has, as you can see from skimming the link, made it clear that he is against torture e.g.: True all he has said about GB is that it's an anomaly but I'm pretty sure that the Law Lords have directly criticised it along with other important people within the UK political scene e.g. the cabinet minister.
    Ok I see your points but all I was trying to make clear was my belief that if the UK is too pussy to openly attack the Americans for it, they shouldn't have the right to criticise other countries for it either. It was a side point though, seemed relevant earlier on.

    (Original post by Kapster)
    I'm going with the thin end of the wedge argument. Once you allow certain kind of torture it becomes easier to allow more extreme methods. Do you, for instance, think that there is no link between Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghrab(sp?)? I'm no expect on the US army's treatment of prisoners tbh though.
    I still don't buy it. We allow imprisonment for life, and yet capital punishment is not allowed and hence does not exist in this country. I am no expert on the US army's antics either though, so can't really comment on the example in quesiton.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2006
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.