An the only reason even that is necessary is because the Intelligence Agencies (from CIA to Mossad) have proven to be impotent in the post-cold war environment. Government's reliance on technology and elimination of funding to support black-ops and continued purchase of human assets have caused this cluster-fuck we have now.
It is sad that some groups fight for their cause by terror and indiscriminate killing. The good news is that they have killed and captured some of them. The fact that they have some alive speaks well of the chances to out any of their gang who have not been killed or caught.
It constantly surprises me what a small world this is.
My colleagues friend was staying in the Taj but went for drinks in the Oberoi and was between the two when it all went down.
I then get a text message from a good mate saying taht he and his wife stayed in the Oberoi the night before!
At the end of the day, there is no single answer to this. To say - "never torture" could easily mean the loss of additional innocent lives. To say "always torture" will result in innocents being tortured. This is the problem with arguing one side of the other of this debate. Both sides are right, at some time, for some situations.
None of us, I hope, is actually close enough to this to be able to make definitive statements.
So I cannot agree with anyone who says that we must never torture, because I think there will be situations where we must, to save lives.
But I also cannot jump on any bandwagons that involve retribution or violence for violence sake.
On balance, I'd rather err on the side of saving large numbers of innocent victims of terrorism and risk harming one or two innocent torture subjects than the reverse. And fund the services well enough to be in the best position to know the difference! And recognise they will make mistakes, as we all do. But at least they are operating for the good when they make mistakes, rather than the terrorists who are out to be evil.
an eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind
How can torture be effective enough to warrant it's use? Suppose the person being questioned doesn't have any information that the authorities seek, but they decide that he is lying and proceed to torture this person, obviously they have already decided that the person is lying - hence starting the torture - so are they only going to stop once the person makes something up that the authorities want to hear? - Supposing that they then act on this made up information, what would happen then? more innocent people being detained/tortured?
Or, is there to be a standard period of torture that we must all endure when asked a question just 'to make sure' we are telling the truth?
Mumbai attacks reported live on Twitter, Flickr - web - Technology
Wow this site shows photos on flickr already and lots of up to the minute stuff by amateurs - it is a small world in some ways.
As to torture and other brutal means, let's just say that citizens say this until someone they know and love is a victim.
If your nation engages in these activities then it seems to me if one of your folks is taken prisoner, the other nation will treat your captives in a similar manner.
Killing in the name of peace and justice is like screwing for virginity.
Hey, even the CIA experts say torture is proven to be unreliable and they should know.
Last edited by Football16; 27-11-2008 at 01:50 PM.