Loud noises!

>> ^jwray:
Not as good as it could be because of her hesitation as she looks on the sheet music. That's like giving a speech with awkward pauses as you look for the next words on the script.


She turns her head away from the harp so she can breathe in.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^DrAlcibiades:
>> ^Aniatario:
answer:
You can't be 100% certain someone is guilty. That's it. No more to add, that's the bottom line.


I won't be as long-winded as you but suffice it to say you are just plain wrong.

>> ^wraith:
The Death Penalty is neither a deterrent nor a punishment, it is merely revenge, not even for the victims or their relatives and loved ones, but for a blood hungry society.


It's a little more than that. What use to society does the serial killer serve? Why should we provide a life for someone who freely chooses to take it from others? It costs you and me money to keep these people locked up in prison where they get 3 meals a day, free medical care, TV, etc. If we are sure of the guilt of a mass murderer, then what is the point in keeping them alive? They are a cancer to society. You don't try to co-exist with a cancer. You eradicate it to the fullest extent possible.

^ Well, duh.

Let me clarify my question. At the risk of belaboring the point, take note that in my scenarios I also said that everything up to the point of torture had been tried without success. I'm saying torture is a last resort meaning whatever FBI protocols are in place, looking for additional leads, etc. has already been attempted and you find yourself no closer to the information that you know the individual possesses. You've tried everything except torture. Being opposed to torture, what do you do at this point where all else has failed?

What answer would you like to hear?

An answer to the question that I've asked several times now like this one:

"And I am still hoping at least one person will tell me what they would do if torture is ruled out as a last resort in the examples I've laid out. Everyone is telling me what they would not do (torture) but not what they would do."

or this one:

"Again, refer to my specific scenario. There was a reason I laid it out the way I did. We are talking absolute proof. The terrorist has already confessed full knowledge of the events that are to take place. He openly brags about it. All doubt as to his guilt has been effectively removed. Thousands of lives are now on the line. You have tried EVERYTHING except torture to get at the information which he holds. Tell me, what do you do now to get that information? If you do nothing, you know that thousands will die."

So once again, in my scenarios, what would you do if torture was not an option? Quite a simple question really. I'm guessing it's the answer that's giving you a hard time.

*waits for explanation about how my scenarios are silly/impossible/stupid*

Sure is a whole lot of "not answering the question" going on around here.

then you have people like jeremy1967 asking if we would torture if we knew everything for 100%.

It's fucking stupid.

Then you have people like Farhad2000 who are afraid to answer the question.

It's fucking stupid.

It's impossible to have the situations you outlined, a terrorist being tortured to save the lives of many others, what if you are wrong?

The situations I've outlined are impossible? Please.

I really can't make this any simpler. How many times do I have to state, in my proposed scenario, THERE IS NO DOUBT OF GUILT! Why do you keep asking, what if I am wrong? It's hypothetical. I have laid things out for you so there are no "what ifs".

I'll stop asking the questions. It's obvious no one wants to answer.

Continue with your trolling Jeremy1967.

I'm sorry if my wanting to engage in a serious discussion about a touchy subject is "trolling" in your book. I'm at least being honest with myself and unafraid to post an unpopular opinion in order to get people to talk about it. If you've got problems with that I suggest you go elsewhere for the time being.

Well, my abduction example was meant to be a little more personal and narrow in scope than the situation you've outlined. I was talking about a local predator where it was likely the captive child was within the immediate neighborhood and time and resources spent to confirm the validity of the information would be minimal.

As far as moral implications, which is worse, the torture of one individual (self-confessed terrorist/murderer/whatever) or allowing the deaths of one or many innocent victims through inaction?

And I am still hoping at least one personal will tell me what they would do if torture is ruled out as a last resort in the examples I've laid out. Everyone is telling me what they would not do (torture) but not what they would do.

Now you are just being silly, you are aiming for sympathy instead of rational logic.

No. I am trying to get anyone to answer a fairly straight-forward question. However, no one seems willing to do so which leads me to believe they are afraid to answer the question honestly. It is much easier, apparently, to dismiss me as being silly. Please point out where my logic is irrational.

The situation you outlined means you are dealing with a psychopath who wouldn't divulge anything because he already faces the worst circumstances of jail and death penalty.

And I say you are making a lot of presumptions at someone else's expense.

The situation I presented is a legitimate one. Why not give me an honest answer?

Here's a more personal example for any parents here.

Let's say, God forbid, your child has been abducted. The abductor has been apprehended for some other criminal violation and it is somehow discovered that he is guilty of the abduction (e.g. photos of the abducted child, bound and gagged, are found in his possession). For whatever reason, he's decided to acknowledge his guilt but will not divulge the location of the child. The police have done everything within the law to get the information without success. He's decided he'd rather let the child die.

Forget foreign policy, human rights arguments, etc. As a parent, how far would you be willing to go to get your child back?

And please don't respond with "hypothetical situations are worthless", "never happen", etc. Humor me, assume the situation is real, and tell me what you would do.

There is no assurance that torture will produce the actual information anyway, he can lie or just die in the process of it.

True, and that is his choice. So, we can do nothing and guaranty the deaths of those victims, or we can try to coerce the information by physical means. To me, it would be foolish not to at least try.

But the base problem with that hypothetical scenario is that the ticking bomb scenario never occurred in real life in all recorded history.

I find that hard to believe. In any case, it doesn't mean the situation will never come up and that is what I am addressing, the possibility of it happening.

torture is the process of going after information we don't know they hold.

Again, the assumption is we DO know they hold the information. Perhaps, the detainee previously released a video tape to Al Jazeera outlining that the attack was imminent but did not give the details needed for us to take any preventive measures.

should we really base our foreign policy with regards to detainment on hypotheticals?

I'm not trying to dictate foreign policy rather address the more basic question, is torture ever justified. That being said, hypothetical situations are the norm when trying to develop a plan of action. For example, what happens if there is a chemical attack on NYC? How about a dirty bomb? These are hypothetical situations and I can assure you we have a contingency plan in place for these exact scenarios even though they have never occurred. I don't understand why everyone is quick to dismiss my example simply because it is hypothetical. Does every event have to have happened at least once in history before we devise a strategy to deal with it?