OK so you're pm and the head of MI5 comes to see you. He says that they have a guy in custody and they know that he alone has planted a huge bomb somewhere in London which is due to go off in a couple of hours, killing thousands.

The prisoner who is a married chap with children flatly refuses to say where the bomb is despite some rigorous questioning.

MI5 guy says to you that there is a pretty good chance that the prisoner could be persuaded to tell all if MI5 were given a free hand to use whatever means they could - torture in other words.

As PM you have just declared that the UK Govt will not condone torture. So what do you do? Stand by your principles or give MI5 the go ahead? You know that MI5 would stop at nothing and this could include torturing the guys family if necessary. You also know that whatever you decide cannot be kept under wraps in the future.

So what do you do?

dl

 

there is no point in torturing a terrorist.

torture is illegal.


however it is generally assumed over 80 world governments actively practice torture.

i would personally have the culprit tortured anyway...
magnifying glass on the nipples would be a good start - providing it was sunny of course

 

Terrorism is also illegal.

Maybe this is a case of two wrongs DO make a right, or maybe the ends justify the means.

 

give them a "free hand" to do what is necessary to save the lives of innocent people.

 

If the bomb went off in London then there's not much chance of any British being injured so I'd give the chap a cup of tea and let the redevelopment happen.

 

that or phone Jack Bauer.

 

I'd look at my foreign policies as they would clearly be inappropriate if I were attracting terrorists

 

Then I'd torture the ******

 

Torture does not really yield useful info - people will say anything to stop the pain. Any intelligence officer worth his salt would be able to get the info out of him without laying a hand on him. Threatening to harm his family for example.

 

Torture the ******.

If he still won't talk, torture his family in front of him till he does talk.

 

I think you will find is classed as torture

Torture of Terrorists and child moleesters/killers - no problems here!

 

as paul says , torture is classified as both physical and mental....

when i say there is no point in torturing a terrorist i meant you prob wouldn't get anything out of it...

 

I would think that a PM would tell them to get the info, by whatever means, but he would only say it in a one-on-one with the head of MI5 and there would be no written note. Hence deniability.
Oh, and I think the terrorist would quietly disappear too

 

Absolutely NO

The trouble is if you do have the right guy, cchances are he's probably already far too commited to the cause to yield to torture.

If you have the wrong guy, what's he going to do when you realise your mistake and release him

 

Surely MI5 would just get on with a "by whatever means" method to get the info instead of wasting time by going to get permission.

I expect the Met would be on hand to offer tips on water-boarding

 

Far too many people on here watch 24!

I have to say though, the argument about him not being the right guy is fairly thin. There is always a risk but how did they get to him in the first place? Sheer luck?
Lie detectors should be used to see if they with holding info. If they are, do whatever is necessary to get the infomation. I would not agree to torturing the family though.
That just shows that we are no better than they are.

 

Bit of water-boarding never hurt anybody....
http://davron.files.wordpress.com/20...erboarding.jpg

 

David,
Have you been watching Spooks by any chance?

One comment in a recent(ish) series was made that since 9/11 the rule of "This we will not do" doesn't apply as how can you obtain the information from such suspects who won't respond to a "please tell us or we'll lock you up for a very very long time".

It also depends on what you consider torture as well. Sticking someone in a room and playing Susan Boyle at them 24/7 could be considered torture.

It's a good point that you could end up causing undue suffering to an innocent person, but one could quote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one", but we know it would not just be one innocent person.

 

Hmmm, what if they've got it wrong & he's innocent ...

TX.

 

I like that answer ..............................

 

I've no problem there either.


You think so.

 

What if the chap was a suicide bomber - pick up the remaining bits?

 

Join him in working your way through the 72 virgins! win win as I see it

 

Its a difficult question to answer and needs to be answered with some qualification I think.

Are the security forces absolutely certain beyond all doubt there is a bomb and that the prisoner is guilty of planting the bomb, or knows where it is?

I would not countenance the use of physical torture. What that chap went through was morally wrong to my mind.

Interrogators are very good at psychological methods of extracting information. Anyone who has been caught on a full survival exercise in the military and been through the interrogation phase will know just what I mean. If all the evidence points towards the man knowing where the bomb is then I would be quite happy for that style of interrogation to be used.

Physical torture can be resisted anyway, and the use of that is morally wrong and would drag us down to an unacceptable level.

Our Government tells us that it does not support the use of torture. If they knew what was happening to that man and went along with it even to supplying the questions they wanted answering, they want stuffing!

Les

 

The virgins are men!!

 

Oh bugger!! Literally

 

Good man - never thought of it that way.

Where do I sign up

 

So, with some noticeable exceptions, what most of you are saying is, in effect, that torture is OK in extreme circumstances. Thus saying that all the recent statements from Brown and MI5 that it cannot be condoned in any form by UK is just pious pie in the sky, even to the extent of Brown misleading the House etc.

I really have no idea what goes on at present but I rather suspect that Brown gives a quiet nod to MI5, with no records kept, telling them to get on with it but don't give him the gory details.

I don't know what I would do but I doubt if I would have the ***** to allow them to have a go at his family.

Perhaps I have been watching too much Spooks

dl

 

Why you you need to torture someone ? sodium pentathol and good interrogation would get the results that you need and be far more likely to get more honest answers than torture. Torture is used more as a way of intimidating a population and breeding a culture of fear that helps control people.