BBC Poll on Torture

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jonwilly, Oct 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The BBC has done a World Wide 'Poll' and says the majoraty of people are aginst torture.
    Strangely it does not list the actual words of the question asked.
    I don't aprove of torture and I have said before we had a BBC TV program where a US university Proffesor of Law was arguing that if Torture must be used then it must be legalized as in Elizabethan England.
    There a high offical signed a document authorising torture in the national intrest.
    The yanks have now approved use of 'Mild' torture in their War against Terror.
    Same old story who wouldn't approve if the lives of their nearest and dearest was at risk.
    I probably would much as I detest the thought.
  2. Ok, heres the scenario.

    Terrorist cell intends to hijack and fly 3 civilian airliners into designated targets in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The plan is at the final stages of the attack cycle and has not been detected by security services.

    At the last moment, one of the terrorists fcuks up and is arrested. He refuses to answer any questions, however it's confirmed that a major attack of some description is going downdown and the clock is ticking. Would those people taking part in the BBC poll and living in the cities listed above, find it unacceptable if doctor torture was invited into the party? mmm.....
  3. If by torture you mean slap them around a bit, maybe, it depends.

    If by torture you mean you mean nail their hands to a table until they talk, then no.

    If a terrorist refuses to answer a question, and a cop/soldier whacks him upside the head, I won't lose too much sleep.
  4. Do you not think that in such a situation, they would not be the best people to ask?

    Because they wondn't be very objective and cool-headed and all that...
  5. Torture might be efficient in the short term but look what happened with the French 10th Parachute division in Algiers in 1957; a socialist government (rings a bell ?) gave them a carte blanche to deal with the FLN terrorist attacks against cafés, discos, stadium etc. which had killed and maimed dozens of civilians.
    In a matter of weeks and with the use of torture, they broke the FLN infrastructure and bombs stopped exploding.
    50 years down the line, what's left ? that the French army used torture against a "national liberation movement", not that the soldiers turned tormentors had actually saved the lives of hundreds of civilians, both French and locals, by arresting and sometimes killing the terrorists.
    The heroes of yesterdays are now seen as a blemish on the country's history and the algerians are using it daily as a way of pressuring the French Gvt into apologies, conviniently forgetting the thousands the FLN murdered and maimed between 1954 and 1962.
  6. Errm this is a bit of an aside...but I've read on another forums that some french legionnaires started dropping people off helicopters...truth in that rumour?

  7. I have no infos on that but what is sure is that a number of FLN prisoners were executed either in the "heat of the action" or deliberatly after having been interrogated.

    One eyed General Aussaresses (a former Free French Jedburgh...) who was one of the chief tormentors in Algeria recognized it in a book he wrote some years ago.
  8. But suppose that he is not a terrorist but law-abiding citizen detained by mistake. Suppose that you (God forbid) would be detained because some real terrorists would mention you in their papers. I'm sure you would not be pleased.
  9. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    So torture is ok as long as you define what torture is? It's more a yes/no answer than shades of grey, surely? Where does "slapping around" end and torture start? More to the point, does it work? I'm pretty sure you can get most people to confess to anything if you hurt them enough.
  10. Ok, heres the scenario.

    Terrorist cell intends to hijack and fly 3 civilian airliners into designated targets in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The plan is at the final stages of the attack cycle and has not been detected by security services.

    At the last moment the security services get some info on this nefarious plot and your name is mentioned in connection, so you get arrested.
    You of course have nothing to do with this plot but you did sell a secondhand car to the brothers uncles first cousin to one of the terrorists.
    After your genitals have been wired to the mains, your feet have been blowtorched for an hour or so and a red hot poker is inserted in your fundament you are asked if you agree that doctor torture was welcome to the party.

    Better to torture one innocent man than 100 guilty go free?
  11. Define torture - one man's torture is another man's pleasure!
  12. All sounds great Stevie, except for the small issue of you having to read my post again. In it you'll notice the line " At the last moment one of terrorists fcuks up and is arrested" as apposed to "Stan, the white van man fcuks up and is arrested". The point I was making is that in extreme situations and where the threat of mass slaughter is present, then a bellend wired to the mains is helpfull. My 20p worth.
  13. THis is the standard excuse for torture.

    Name one instance in history when torturing terrorists has forced them to disclose the location of a ticking bomb.
  14. Probably difficult to do as no-one is going to put their hand up to admitting torture!!!!
  15. Guilty until you have screamed enough to prove that you are innocent?