Thanks Toby - that must be where the question came from. I agree with everything the article says. It is basically saying torture would not work even in this silly example. Is that the only reason then that we would not torture him? Because it would not be effective rather than it is morally wrong.
It certainly is out of order - good thing nobody is doing that I personally dislike the "it is not effective" reason for not torturing. The reason I would not use torture is because I believe it is morally wrong.
It was intimated on here yesterday that Paul Nuttall's comments on waterboarding would have an effect on his chances of being elected Stoke on Trent's next MP. I believe there is a sizeable (to be determined) number of people who are prepared to turn a blind eye to any 'extreme interrogation to what they consider terrorists or ISIS. I"m sure if his comments have caused a negative response in the constituency it will soon be highlighted.
You cannot keep it non personal Leo. A person has no right to ask another person to do something that they, themselves, could not do - so your own, personal, reaction is vital here. A knee jerk reaction against someone who has done something dreadfull to you is one thing - but the kind of systematic torture which is implied by waterboarding (or indeed any of the other techniques used by the CIA) implies premeditation. It implies planning, training, testing, design etc. If you condone its use - then you also condone this planning, training, testing, design etc. and all the evil minds who are involved in this. I am not in any way interested in the question of its effectiveness - but rather the fact that its use turns the user into a person who no longer qualifies for the adjective 'human'.
To me it is beyond question that you treat another human in that way. Call it what you like, it is morally wrong. Do unto others................. You know the rest.
I see no evidence of a hissy fit here SH. As I see it you have not answered the supplementary question that I and others put... i.e. you infer that it is only on effectiveness that you have any concerns about the use of waterboarding... Am i right that in some circumstances you would approve the use of torture techniques? There is currently a raft of legal actions against members of the British armed forces for their behaviour in Iraq for example. There is a big moral question here that is being addressed. I would welcome further understanding of your position
You are a great historical thinker Cologne and often educate us here. What I was trying to do was a form of Socratic reasoning. It is to eke out the morality of action not the practicality and it has no defence of sub human people involved either. To make it simpler than my previous example and get away from the mundane objections about whether it would be effective let me suggest another approach Imagine you were transported back in time ( no need for anyone to prove that cannot happen OK?) and had a gun and were in front of a 20 year old Hitler - would you shoot him? I am not going to do it because I am losing the will to live on here but you could then go on to see if instead of shooting him you incapacitate himuse torture or whatever and so on. What it does is to start with what seems an easy and straightforward question but then makes subtle changes to test where the moral line becomes hard. As a pacifist it is easy for me as I do not shoot Hitler even though I know millions die as a result - hopefully more sensible people than me - people who can adjust their views to take account of a situation start at a different point. What I see on here though is another example of a collective position being taken and a wolf pack attack on a person who will not submit to the pack's desire and by extension to somebody perceived to be defending him (which I was not). People who cannot understand that their morality is not the same as another person's. Why can we not celebrate difference - when this whole board is just a collection of silly cartoons lampooning those we do not agree with, articles from newspapaers and patting each other on the back and telling each other how much we agree will it be a better board? I only wanted to become a mod again to try to help steer the board back towards what I saw as a degree of rational and well thought out debate. I have failed in that and now just get mocked myself with the use of "scum", am accused of supporting the underdog and no doubt other things will follow. It saddens me - that's all
Ignoring all the other important deciding factors and just making a decision on a moral basis I would support extreme interrogation if it was an almost certainly that the action would to save lives. I would expect this action to be exceptional and not a matter of course as in the past at Guantanamo Bay.
Are actions judged by their motives or by their results Leo ? If I jump into the flames and rescue someone from certain death is my act diminished if the person I have rescued turns out later to be a mass murderer. Any thinking person would say no to that one. People who torture are not angry when they do it - they are not taking revenge, they are people who are paid to do it, who are trained to do it - and, I hate to say it, possibly enjoy it. So, to return to the queston, motives or results ? You ask what I would have done with Hitler - I don't know, without him there may well have been someone else. But I honestly have no idea on that - I could imagine killing someone if I knew for certain that it would save a million people's lives - but I would have nightmares about it for the rest of my life. I do not imagine that professional torturers have nightmares.
It is so easy on here to take the moral high ground knowing full well you will never be in a position to have to take these difficult life decisions. I accept my views do not match others on here but I suggest there are as many nationwide with my views as yours.
It is a sad day for the UK if it should turn it's back on being a tolerant society to one that accepts torture. It is exactly for that reason that I feel the right wing who approve of such things should be opposed by any peaceful means available to us.
Anyone advocating the use of torture should remember that they are also sanctioning the creation of the profession torturer - a modern day Torquemada. People who do this do not do it just the once, they need to practice to perfect their art. A person who did it once would have nightmares about it for the rest of their lives - so they continue, they harden themselves to it. My father said about the war that the first killing was the worst but, thereafter, it became easier, until it was, just a job. But, they were becoming brutalized - so much so that my father served on a firing squad in North Africa. Harry Roberts also became hardened - his violence started in Malaysia. With shooting of prisoners, and, according to his own account, torture. When you institutionize the profession 'torturer', you are on the first step to creating a monster. What does he tell his kids when he retires ? You are destroying his life as effectively as that of the victim. How can people do this ? Perhaps because the guards in Guantanamo are doped up to the eye balls. Every war is followed by an intoxification program - but they don't tell this to the public. The Wehrmacht in World War 2 went to war on a sea of Crystal Meth (Panzerschokolade) and came back as junkies - the Americans the same, because this helped to turn people into monsters. Remember, torture needs a torturer. If you would not be prepared to do this yourself then do not ask anyone else to do it.
I doubt there has been any difference in the tolerance for the last 2,000 years. Torture has always happened. It is now politically unacceptable in the UK and probably will be also in the US.
https://sayyes2europe.eu/2016/03/13/how-a-churchill-quote-was-stitched-up-to-support-brexit/ Looks like many Brexiters' hero Winston would not have been a fan of theirs...
It is good to see an overwhelming number of MP's decided to back the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. I expect the unelected House of Lords members to also do their duty and make sure article 50 is invoked by the date chosen by our PM. All of the stalling tactics just delayed the inevitable.
