[manimal]

Originally posted by fluff
If I understand you correctly you are saying that's it's OK to torture someone if they have information that you need to save other lives. Is that correct?

At first reading that seems reasonable but then consider this...

1. How do you know that they have the information that you think that they have?

2. The only way that you know what they know is if you already know it.

3. If you know it already there is no need to torture someone to elicit information you already have.

4. If you don't know it you cannot be sure that they do either.

5. It is certainly not reasonable to justify torture on a results basis. Given enough torture the victim will simply tell you what you want to hear.

What makes this more worrying, as others have said, is that you are a police officer. Now I do not claim to be an expert on the American law enforcement system, but does that not make you a public servant? Is there not some motto about 'to protect and serve'?

Given your statement above are you sure you're in the right job?

i'll see if i can respond to all of your questions here. first, in response to your list of questions involving torture: wow, if you really think that it's a game of "i have a hunch that he knows something and i'm going to beat him until you tell me" then you have a very minute understanding of military intelligence and tactics; many other nations try that with EVERY pow but we don't. i won't go into a dissertation on the subject but i think it's safe to say that the people in the position to make these type of "interrogative" decisions know a lot more than you do on the subject. the colonels' decision to "scare" the prisoner was made with the well being of his men in mind; that's his job and that's what the army had trained him to do: protect your men at ALL costs.

now, i'm a little disturbed that you guys think i'm shallow enough to be unable to differentiate between military duty and public service. as a marine (soldier, sailor....) in a combat zone the rules are a LOT different, simple unalienable rights don't apply when lives are at stake or when the bad guys are shooting at you. as a cop, my duty is not to act as judge and jury on someone, simply to uphold the law, my personal/political ideals have no place in my job. "...I will never permit personal feeling, political beliefs, prejudices, aspirations, animosities or friendships influence my decisions....." -Law Enforcement code of ethics-

how many of you guys have ever been through SERE school, you know, the school where they teach you how to Survive Evade Resist Escape from captors and you end up spending at least 24 hours in a pretend Pow camp? yeah...didn't think so, i have and have an inkling of an idea what to expect if i were ever captured...it's not nice. trust me, firing a shot "away" from a prisoner is like giving him room service after fluffing his pillows compared to what our boys face if captured. you want our boys to start winning over there? how about letting them do their job.

think about this fluff/ummbikes. someone kidnaps your wife/kids/loved one and you happen to catch a guy that was an accomplice in the act. he says that your loved one will be killed in 2 hours then laughs because he won't tell you where they are. would you fire a shot "away" from him in the hopes of scaring him into telling you? i bet your loved ones would want you too. i'd hate to live with the knowledge that my loved ones were killed because the bad guy's right to not be scared was more important.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
You forgot your smiley.

I would have thought why you walked through a fire was more important than how. (re. your sig line)

I wasnt joking, and...

No matter how you get in the fire or why, the way you react and see yourself through is most imporant.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I wasnt joking, and...

No matter how you get in the fire or why, the way you react and see yourself through is most imporant.

You seriously wanted to be snippy?

Why so you consider how you react more important than why you are there?

If we consider a burning house and I stroll into it to get a book I am reading, get burnt but stay sanguine, as opposed to I run into a burning house to save a child and scream like a little girl whilst saving the child's life and getting equally burned as in the first example.

Which makes more sense?

How you react is surely only important after why you are in that position? If you do not act with reason how would you expect to react with reason?

(A philisophical discussion that probably belongs elsewhere.)

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by manimal

think about this fluff/ummbikes.

There's a big difference between saving my loved ones (for which I would kill/maim dismember etc anyone I KNEW to be responsible, without compunction or regret) and leading the cheerleading in favour of torture.

Some posts here are coming across as 'it's okay to torture the bad guys, cos we know they're bad guys'. That involves personal judgement by human beings in a stressful environment. Mistakes will be made.

I am not so naive to think that people are polite to each other in times of war, I know if I was in such a position I would struggle to maintain my personal principles whilst knowing my life could be in danger from the guy walking down the street in civilian clothing.

None of which justifies torture (and I have stated that I think this particular guy was hard done by).

I responded to posts that implied torture is OK under certain circumstances. To me that is the problem, there's nowhere to draw a line to say it's ok under these circumstances but not under others.

To return to your example of loved ones, I would do anything to ensure their safety (with the possible exception of killing innocent people) with no regard for personal consequences. That does not mean I think it's right, just personal.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
You seriously wanted to be snippy?

Why so you consider how you react more important than why you are there?

If we consider a burning house and I stroll into it to get a book I am reading, get burnt but stay sanguine, as opposed to I run into a burning house to save a child and scream like a little girl whilst saving the child's life and getting equally burned as in the first example.

Which makes more sense?

How you react is surely only important after why you are in that position? If you do not act with reason how would you expect to react with reason?

(A philisophical discussion that probably belongs elsewhere.)

Dude, if your house is on fire...do you stop and think about "why" its on fire, or do you grab your S*** and get the hell out?

Sure, maybe you could have checked your plugs to make sure they didnt overload the outlet, but that doesnt do any good of some skinheads just doused your home in gas and threw a match on it.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by manimal

think about this fluff/ummbikes. someone kidnaps your wife/kids/loved one and you happen to catch a guy that was an accomplice in the act. he says that your loved one will be killed in 2 hours then laughs because he won't tell you where they are. would you fire a shot "away" from him in the hopes of scaring him into telling you? i bet your loved ones would want you too. i'd hate to live with the knowledge that my loved ones were killed because the bad guy's right to not be scared was more important.

Well in this senario I would be commiting a felony. Then I would be arrested and my family would be dead and I would be in jail for someting along the lines of attempted murder or the ever popular discharging a firearm in city limits.

The issue is really about following the law. I think some laws are dumb and should be modified but if I were convicted of breaking them would have to serve my time.

The point I atempted to make (and didn't) is that a person in a position of great authority (like the police or military) needs to adhere to the letter of law 100%. The reason is that they are the enforcement branch of government and sworn to uphold these laws and treaties.

I can that there are times when it would seem logical that breaking the law/treaty is the best option. The problem is that without laws/treaties we would live in a system of anarchy. Which some think would be great but I don't.

I do owe you an apology for questioning your integrity, I am sure you will be a fine officer of the law. I just am concerned about liberty and suspect of a cop who openly laughs off the A.C.L.U as a joke.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude, if your house is on fire...do you stop and think about "why" its on fire, or do you grab your S*** and get the hell out?

Sure, maybe you could have checked your plugs to make sure they didnt overload the outlet, but that doesnt do any good of some skinheads just doused your home in gas and threw a match on it.

Quit blowing smoke up my ass and answer the question..

Or is your logic really so faulty that you believe you are still on track in this?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Quit blowing smoke up my ass and answer the question..

This one?

Originally posted by fluff
How you react is surely only important after why you are in that position? If you do not act with reason how would you expect to react with reason?

yeah, so which came first, the chicken or the egg, anyway?



One can act perfectly and preparedly in every sense, but still find himself in a crisis. Its just the nature of life. Only under fire can a man truly be judged. We're all wonderful when things are going our way. That's the way i take it anyway. You should try reading some Bukowski by the way, maybe it'd bring you back to earth.

Here's another quote you wont get.

"Life is 10% what actually happens, and 90% how you react to it,"
- i forget.

 

[Jorvik]

I'm going to butt into Fluff and Burly Surly's debate for a second.

Fluff - You are wrong.

Burly Surly - You are right.

Done.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Saving lives is less important than the emotional stability of a prisoner?

Its not the emotional stability of one prisoner. its the integrity of the rules of war, which protects alot more soldiers than information on attacks. short term vs long term