Cyprus-Forum.com

[roseandchan]

so people being blown to bits in a bomb is not torture? lets feel sorry for the bomb maker. they gave up their human rights when they commited these crimes against others. they are not human.

[tessintrnc]

I don't think any one should be tortured, but if lives could be saved by making the "canary sing" then I think drugs should be used - not physical abuse.

Ethically using drugs is the same as using physical force ...

Quite. However if SAVING lives is at stake, then drugs, in my opinion are more acceptable than say, electricuted testicals or water boarding.

[Oracle]

I don't think any one should be tortured, but if lives could be saved by making the "canary sing" then I think drugs should be used - not physical abuse.

Ethically using drugs is the same as using physical force ...

Quite. However if SAVING lives is at stake, then drugs, in my opinion are more acceptable than say, electricuted testicals or water boarding.

Personally, I think there is no excuse for torture of any description, be it physical, drug-induced or even psychological. If the information cannot be gathered any other way, so be it. More at-source intelligence gathering is possible these days anyway.

An individual has Rights that go above supposed national securities.

But as far as your point tess, which I think is shared by many, regarding the notion that it is in some way, more acceptable to use drugs, than e.g. water-boarding ....... I would say the fallacy stems from a desire to distance one's self from the torture.

It is only the torturer that suffers less by resorting to drugs.

You think one can administer the drug, and then responsibility for its effects are transposed to the drug. Thus absolving yourself from further guilt. The painful reminder of what you are inflicting can be diminished because you no longer have to get your hands dirty, or be part of the ongoing process.

And even though those drugs may produce the nastiest reactions, and most continue their effects long after, maybe irreversibly, and likely to produce other horror symptoms years later ... yet somehow you think that is preferable?

It is very easy for us to justify something we know is wrong by ameliorating it with countless excuses ... usually by abdicating to authority.

[tessintrnc]

I agree with most of what you are saying Oracle, but if theres a bomb about to go off, and only one person knows when and where - then I cannot see any other way. If the world was not as it is, then there would be no need for a discussion. Physical (as in pain) torture, mutilation and humiliation methods I do not agree with any more than I agree with the death penalty. However if it was to save one of my childrens lives I would want that person to speak, even if it meant resorting to drugs. (by the way I mean a truth type drug - not the one used on a regular basis by Jack Bauer in 24) !!!!

[perdike]

I agree with most of what you are saying Oracle, but if theres a bomb about to go off, and only one person knows when and where - then I cannot see any other way. If the world was not as it is, then there would be no need for a discussion. Physical (as in pain) torture, mutilation and humiliation methods I do not agree with any more than I agree with the death penalty. However if it was to save one of my childrens lives I would want that person to speak, even if it meant resorting to drugs. (by the way I mean a truth type drug - not the one used on a regular basis by Jack Bauer in 24) !!!!

Absolutely agree!
If a person harbours violent intent toward others, and the use speech inducing drugs can prevent that atrocity, I'd say the prevention of that atrocity BY NON-VIOLENT MEANS has the moral imperative.

[Oracle]

I agree with most of what you are saying Oracle, but if theres a bomb about to go off, and only one person knows when and where - then I cannot see any other way. If the world was not as it is, then there would be no need for a discussion. Physical (as in pain) torture, mutilation and humiliation methods I do not agree with any more than I agree with the death penalty. However if it was to save one of my childrens lives I would want that person to speak, even if it meant resorting to drugs. (by the way I mean a truth type drug - not the one used on a regular basis by Jack Bauer in 24) !!!!

If that one person knew where the bomb was, statistics show they would not tell ... people are prepared to become suicide bombers for their cause, hence torture doesn't work. It is well known that information gathered that way is usually false.

Much better to spend the money on surveillance, vigilance, preemptive intelligence gathering and preventing the onset of such scenarios in the first place.

Torture is outdated and does not work in terms of yielding information to save lives.

[purdey]

I would like to see the evidence of that Phoenix. I thought intelligence gathering, surveillance, were the one's failing at the moment.

[Oracle]

I would like to see the evidence of that Phoenix. I thought intelligence gathering, surveillance, were the one's failing at the moment.

Archive some Amnesty International records .....

[purdey]

I have always been rather wary of the written word, especially when trying to muster support. I prefer word of mouth or maybe action.

[Nikitas]

Any statistics on how many innocents were tortured because some thick headed security operative suspected them of having relevant info? Are these people also "countless"?

During the dictatorship in Greece (1967-1974) countless people were tortured because they were suspected of being left wing or communist. The west turned ablind eye and some even an approving eye to the torture.

Those who approve of torture should think of this simple test- what if you were suspected and were put through the same techniques?