Torture? Rendition? Who is safe?
Posted by: Deane F on 18 October 2006
Scumbags.
You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.
But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.
Scumbags.
You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.
But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.
Scumbags.
Posted on: 31 October 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Lets say that the security forces somehow *know* beyond all reasonable doubt, that a detained person has information that could be used to save the lives of thousands of people.... Lets also assume that this detained person has an incredibly low pain threshold.
If the application of some minor pain such as a "Chinese burn" would produce information that would save these lives, then IMO its a worthwhile trade: one persons temporary mild physical discomfort in return for many, many lives. So, in principle, I think it could be justified in some circumstances.
Its all a question of degree.
Regards
Mike
Assuming that scenario, a Chinese burn would actually be excruciatingly painful to that suspect. And what if he/she had a high pain threshold? How far would it be permissible to go – judicious application of a blowtorch perhaps?
If you are going to allow torture, you might as well allow whatever it takes.
And who’s to say it will be effective? A fanatic will simply lie to end the pain – “the bomb is at xxx”. The security forces go there and find nothing; repeat until the damn thing explodes.
Posted on: 31 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:If you are going to allow torture, you might as well allow whatever it takes.
Its a bit like suggesting we might as well dump the Geneva Convention and all other restraints.
So I don't agree with you. Like Mike says, there are degrees.
The word "reasonable" springs to mind. And I think that is what Deane is hinting at. The courts decide after the event as to whether the action was "reasonable"
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 31 October 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
Don
What do you think is reasonable torture?
What do you think is reasonable torture?
Posted on: 01 November 2006 by Don Atkinson
Nigel,
As I said, what is reasonable is for a court to decide.
I imagine it would depend on a lot of factors. Far too difficult to make a simple pre-determinate statement that covers all eventualities.
No doubt, if a series of hypothetical cases were set out, we would all have a go at describing what we, as individuals, thought was reasonable.
Cheers
Don
As I said, what is reasonable is for a court to decide.
I imagine it would depend on a lot of factors. Far too difficult to make a simple pre-determinate statement that covers all eventualities.
No doubt, if a series of hypothetical cases were set out, we would all have a go at describing what we, as individuals, thought was reasonable.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 November 2006 by Don Atkinson
*wrong post, in wrong thread*
Cheers
Don
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 02 November 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Nigel,
As I said, what is reasonable is for a court to decide.
I imagine it would depend on a lot of factors. Far too difficult to make a simple pre-determinate statement that covers all eventualities.
No doubt, if a series of hypothetical cases were set out, we would all have a go at describing what we, as individuals, thought was reasonable.
Cheers
Don
That's a "don't know" then? Or a cop-out?
Posted on: 02 November 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:That's a "don't know" then? Or a cop-out?
Neither.Its a straightforward statement.
Mike has already outline one set of circumstances in which he (and I) consider torture would be acceptable and there weren't too many protests.
Perhaps your goodself, or others would care to describe a scenario (circumstances of the "terrorist", evidence available, torture proposed by the "goodies", benfits to be achieved with extracted information etc) and i'll try to give you my opinion as to whether I find it acceptable or not.
Cheers
Don