November 14th, 2010

Not something you say often

Posted in Other Stuff by 200

So Mr Bush has admitted he have the go ahead for Al-Qaeda suspects to be waterboarded.

I think theres probably lots of things you can criticise him for but, speaking personally, I say bloody good job, Georgie Boy.

It’s nice to see someone with the balls to stand up say bollocks to the human rights of people whose goal is the destruction of innocent lives.

If someone had a bomb strapped to one of my children  & I thought someone had the code to turn it off, I’d be right at the front of the queue to use whatever method I thought would work to save their life.

Don’t talk to me about their human rights, they gave up their human rights the moment they started plans to kill.

So good on ya George.

I would, would you?

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

43 comments

  1. Shackleford Hurtmore says:

    No, I wouldn’t.

    I have a lot of respect for the police, what you face every day and what you do for us. But every so often, one of you says something so stupid that it makes me angry. This blog post is one of those things.

    1. Torture doesn’t work. Even the Americans admit it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html -If I waterboard you, you will eventually confess to anything I suggest to you, just to make it stop. That then means wasted intelligence resources obtaining worthless confessions and attempting to thwart non-existent plots.

    2. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Some of these suspected terrorists were strangers handed over to Americans purely for the reward money offered, with no other intelligence to suggest that they were actually terrorists. If the only evidence to determine someone is a terrorist is that they confessed to being terrorists under torture, how certain are you that they really are terrorists who deserved to be tortured.

    Did you guys not learn anything from the farce of what you did to The Birmingham Six?

    Life is not an episode of 24. You are not Jack Bauer.

    Please reconsider your views on the use of torture.

    November 15th, 2010 at 01:12

  2. 200 says:

    But we’re not talking about getting a little old conviction for something that’s happened in the past to get some tea & medals back on the lawn.

    We’re talking about your children Shackleford, they’re going to die.

    Innocent until proven guilty is too late.

    Morals are fine when it’s other people.

    Oh, and it’s not ‘you guys’ it’s me. I don’t speak for anyone else. Much as I expect you’re not a spokesman for whoever you know or work with.

    November 15th, 2010 at 01:21

  3. Kev says:

    I agree with you, 200.

    It is the job of the state to protect it’s citizens. If that means torturing or even killing a few people who want to blow my fellow citizens to bits, then so be it. It has always been that way. Since the earliest empires, torture has been a recourse of the state. To pretend that “we” don’t do it is head-in-the-sand playschool innocence. It happens, always has and probably always will.

    Bad things happen all the time and sometimes the person experiencing them does not deserve it but such is the nature of the world. To pretend otherwise is to go and sit with people who think police should use a “vulcan nerve pinch” Spock style on a fighting drunk or “shoot to wound”.

    November 15th, 2010 at 01:37

  4. the_leander says:

    No. I wouldn’t. Because I would not be able to rely on any information extracted through torture.

    “It’s nice to see someone with the balls to stand up say bollocks to the human rights of people whose goal is the destruction of innocent lives.”

    Especially when it involves large cash sums(by western standards) to hand people in, in some of the poorest parts of the world. Real example – an afghan taxi company owner sold info to the US about one of his rivals, that person then spent the next 5 or so years being tortured – nice!

    Human rights are there to protect you as well as “them”.

    “Don’t talk to me about their human rights, they gave up their human rights the moment they started plans to kill.”

    Prove it.

    I’m serious. You’ve tortured a whole bunch of people who have all “confessed” that they were going to blow up your kids.

    Now, which one of these people, if any, actually had anything to do with it?

    Torture does not and has never provided reliable intelligence in the entire history of man. Even the former head of MI5 has come out publicly stating that torture is useless.

    “We’re talking about your children Shackleford, they’re going to die.”

    Wtf is he doing working on an active case involving his own family? False dichotomy much?

    Apparently the point about life not being an episode of 24 was lost on you.

    “Morals are fine when it’s other people.”

    Much like saying it’s ok to torture other people. Works both ways.

    November 15th, 2010 at 02:14

  5. Oi says:

    The real answer was lost when The Chimp decided to invade Iraq and do a Vietnam in Afghanistan.
    However, thats water under the bridge,
    After decades of dealing with dross, I have very little compassion left for my fellow-man – and save that small amount for victims, including the hapless citizens of both the above mentioned countries when they get their limbs blown off by zealots looking to socialise with 79 Susan Boyles when they reach heaven.

    If filling some a***hole with water saves some of these victims or our troops, then more power to the man with the hose!

    November 15th, 2010 at 06:06

  6. dickiebo says:

    You are dead right, 200.
    I am opposed to any form of torture that may equate us to the SS, but these evil b*****ds come and live among us, totally abuse our hospitality, preach the death of Christians, and bomb anybody they get the chance to bomb.
    Human Rights my arse!

    November 15th, 2010 at 09:28

  7. 200 says:

    leander – “Don’t talk to me about their human rights, they gave up their human rights the moment they started plans to kill. Prove it.”

    Prove it?? it’s an opinion, it’s not a fact, how can you *prove* it? It’s as valid as your opinion that people like that *should* have human rights, how do you prove they should have rights?

    And the premise of the debate is that your child is going to die, you have the person who can turn off the bomb, do you torture them?, you’ve not gone round randomly pulling people off the street to see what they know. And BTW if my kids ever do something like that feel free to waterboard them for that information.

    So, would you let your children die to maintain the moral high ground?

    November 15th, 2010 at 10:55

  8. JohnM says:

    There is no moral high-ground, just varying levels of low-ground.
    I respect other peoples human rights, until they dis-respect mine.
    And if they involve my children in their crusade to kill everyone who does not believe in “their” god then they can stick their human rights up their backside, along with the hose.
    Which is usually their preferred route of entry anyway.

    November 15th, 2010 at 11:20

  9. Plodnomore says:

    What a can worms you’ve opened, 200. To a certain extent Shackleford and Leander are correct in that when domeone is being tortured they will say anything the tortuer wants them to say – you can go as far back as the ‘witchcraft trials’ in England and Salem where the tortured souls admitted anything and everything and implicated their friends and family purely so the pain would stop. On the other hand, when several UK citizens of Asian origin go ‘on holiday’ to Pakistan or to ‘help children’s charities’ and are found on the Afghan border with a shedload of weapons and ammo, I would suggest that being cautioned, given a cup of tea every 30 minutes, 3 meals a day and a comfortable bed to sleep in is not the best way of obtaining information on which village, school or Allied military base is going to be on the receiving end! As I understand it, any information given by those ‘under pressure’ is always checked with other information, know facts or intelligence reports so in that respect Shack and Leander are wrong. A topic that could run and run. By the way, anybody been on the receiving end of torture (except me and the flight crew in Aden). It bloody hurts and yes, I did tell them a little bit more than my name, rank and number. Fortunately my Force still accepted me with only 7 toes and half an ear.

    November 15th, 2010 at 11:46

  10. SHIJURO... says:

    well…

    Most torture don’t work… some does though…hence why SAS/MI5/MI6 are trained how to resist it. Everyone talks.

    So, the old ‘torture dont work blagg’ is pants…

    I have no issue with torturing people-but only for the reason that if we do not, many people will die.

    It certainly should not be an interrogation technique…

    Its silly to say that people wanting to murder 1000s (or millions) of people have rights to stay silent if that silence will condemn those people to death.

    If it’s them or us, I vote us…

    November 15th, 2010 at 12:57

  11. the_leander says:

    “Prove it?? it’s an opinion, it’s not a fact, how can you *prove* it? It’s as valid as your opinion that people like that *should* have human rights, how do you prove they should have rights?”

    Yes, the whole crux of your argument for the use of torture is that provides reliable enough information that this supposedly kidnapped child can be saved. It should not be too difficult to show that torture, if applied judiciously can yield more than nonsense *enough of the time* to justify it’s use.

    As for proving they should have rights. I would have thought you above most would consider the rule of law to be sacrosanct.

    Hell, even prisoners of war have some rights under the Geneva convention.

    But, lets look at your situation more closely for a moment.

    A child has been kidnapped and (for the sake of argument) during the attempt or at least shortly afterwards, one of the suspects is found and brought back.

    Sooner rather than later, the other kidnappers are going to become aware of this.

    Now, why was your child taken – what are they trying to get you to do/give?

    In a society like the UK, they have little to loose and a lot to gain by not killing their hostage. In a society that follows your opinion through and tortures people as SOP such as Iraq, handing over a live one is a liability.

    The result is that in the UK, you’d be damned unlucky to not get your child back alive. In Iraq, you’d have to be at least as lucky as the brit was unlucky to get their child back in one piece.

    Your entire premise just doesn’t stack up outside of a movie situation.

    “And the premise of the debate is that your child is going to die, you have the person who can turn off the bomb, do you torture them?”

    My name is neither Jack Baur, Jason Bourne or Jack Ryan

    It’s a false dichotomy for the reasons outlined above.

    If it’s real life, and you’re in a society that ok’s torture or are dealing with people zealous/psychotic enough to use violence and kidnapping as a means to get what they want, your kid was dead the moment they were snatched and we both know it.

    I also know that if it is my kid, the best thing I can do is to hand it over to a trained and equipped third party like the police to deal with it – I’m too close to the situation to deal with it rationally and would as likely as not be a liability for all concerned.

    Now 200, how many times during your career have you/one of your colleagues had to explain the above paragraph to a victim (albeit in gentler terms)?

    I’ve no small amount of respect for you 200, yours and a couple of other police blogs have together given me a valuable and much needed insight into what goes on in the police. You were never “the filth” to me as I’d dealt with the police first hand on a couple of occasions to go along with that line of unthinking, but I’ve a good deal more respect for your profession than I did to begin with. I think on balance though, we may end up having to agree to disagree on this issue.

    November 15th, 2010 at 14:29

  12. SHIJURO... says:

    As I say, if torture dont work…

    Why are IRA/MI5/MI6/SAS/Army trained in techniques to resist but always have the punchline- ‘everyone talks’?

    There are lots of different types of torture-and for something that doesnt work- an awful lot of people have been doing it for an awfully long time…

    So, you suggest that if we capture a person that has planted a number of bio-agent devices in a major populated area, that are likely to kill 000′s or perhaps millions- we should just ask nicely?

    and if they say ‘up yours’ we just say, ‘oh well we did our best…???’

    The ‘ticking bomb’ may be a straw man of sorts but… hey… it could happen.

    or are you one of those people that says ‘we shouldnt have nuked Japan’ even though that saved flip knows how many allied troops lives (McArthur estimated over a million)???

    As a routine method of gathering intelligence torture isnt morally justified.

    However, there are times when it is to save peoples lives.

    November 15th, 2010 at 15:58

  13. rafanon says:

    What a fantastic debate. Reading the entries I found myself swaying on both sides of the argument. It’s good to see a measured empassioned discussion without arrogance or insult.

    My personal opinion is that if they’ve been caught red handed so to speak (with weapons or intelligence linking them to be enemy) then a certain amount of torture to gain more information is acceptable. I don’t think waterboarding is appropriate in any circumstance but i’ll be damned if I could sit by and chat when I know that they know more than they’re letting on.

    Thank you, 200 for a brilliant discussion point.

    November 15th, 2010 at 16:10

  14. Tony F says:

    Good points all around. My personal view is to say that torture should only be used in extremis, and not as a routine. There are many levels of torture though. Waterboarding being sort of at one end, but there is also solitary confinement and other mind games ( obviously only useful if time allows). If the suspect is known to be holding information that’s vital then I think it is the greatest good of the greatest number. I think to be honest, on the whole, I am glad that there are people on our side who are prepared to do what is necessary to protect the likes of me.

    November 15th, 2010 at 16:41

  15. Met BlackRat says:

    I’m a serving officer yet I’m still curious as to why the rights of anyyone that wants / chooses / decides to live outside the acceptable bounds of society, we fight hardest to defend. We should be defending the innocent, the poor, the weak, the downtrodden NOT some verminous terrorist such as Abu Hamza AND decorating his gaffe to boot. Live outside society, decide to be an outlaw and suffer the bloody consequences. I for one would and could torture someone who threatened my children and sleep perfectly well each and every night. I’m not a Geoprge Bush fan but, Vival Bush & Viva la Revolution………………

    November 15th, 2010 at 17:50

  16. Met BlackRat says:

    Has my comment been deleted??

    November 15th, 2010 at 18:13

  17. Met BlackRat says:

    Has my comment been deleted?

    November 15th, 2010 at 18:16

  18. Hogday says:

    Rules are bent at every level in a variety of places to achieve the `best` results but I never tolerated thugs or bullies, on my watch as a supervisor. In my experience, most people generally don’t want to know how the peace was kept, just that it was. I have never seen anyone subjected to `torture`, but if I found out that my last flight from Pristina to Manchester had landed safely because a captured terrorist had his nuts twisted I would thank whoever saved my life.

    November 15th, 2010 at 18:18

  19. Civ_In_The_City says:

    I`m starting to conclude that I don`t have a strong opinion one way or the other. I`m suspicious though of people describing the U.K. or U.S.A. as ‘civilised’ as some sort of reason for not torturing people. I`m not saying it`s a bad reason, I`m saying I`m not so sure we are a civilised society (one vote every four years, and fortnightly bin collections, aren`t enough).

    But then, there are plenty of people who won`t have grain of rice to eat tonight.

    Would Al Quaeda think twice about using torture?

    Our alternative to torture for known terrorists is to give them shelter, bed, meals, X-Box 360, Sky T.V. and Yoga classes.

    My conclusion is I`d not like to be tortured myself, so I won`t go anywhere they do torture people, and I won`t start any plots to fly jets into major U.K. landmarks or blow up any London buses.

    I reckon that should see me safe.

    November 15th, 2010 at 19:06

  20. Simon says:

    Would I torture a terrorist to save my family……yes.

    Torture does work otherwise it wouldn’t be carried out.

    November 15th, 2010 at 19:52

  21. the_leander says:

    “As I say, if torture dont work…”

    I didn’t say that. I repeat: Torture does not provide reliable intelligence and never has.

    “So, you suggest that if we capture a person that has planted a number of bio-agent devices in a major populated area, that are likely to kill 000’s or perhaps millions- we should just ask nicely?”

    What the hell is up with people using logical fallacies to justify themselves today?

    “The ‘ticking bomb’ may be a straw man of sorts but… hey… it could happen.”

    It’s a damned nonsense that you’re using to justify barbarity.

    November 15th, 2010 at 20:54

  22. Blueknight says:

    The Al Qaeda situation is a war in all but name. lets not get too sentimental about people who are trying to kill us.

    November 15th, 2010 at 21:07

  23. 200 says:

    leander,

    unfortunately for you, it’s my bat & ball & I’ve laid the ground rules. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

    The rules are that your child has a bomb strapped to him/her & you have the person who has the code to defuse it. no why have they kidnapped nonsense, just a pure & simple scenario.

    As to the rule of law being sacrosanct – the last thing I’d consider is the rule of law in this situation. The rule of survival would trump that.

    This is not something taken from the pages of the local constabulary’s daily briefings, it’s a hypothetical debate.

    Your 24-hours analogy is completely lost on me since I’ve never seen it & I wouldn’t know Jack Bauer if he jumped out of my porridge.

    November 15th, 2010 at 22:47

  24. 200 says:

    I’m reminded of Colonel Jessop’s courtroom monologue in ‘A Few Good Men’

    “Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

    November 15th, 2010 at 22:48

  25. RogBoy says:

    C’mon 200, you just started this topic to wind up MTG didn’t you? Tell the truth now!

    From a practical point of view, I suspect that “enhanced” interrogation has drawbacks. As indicated by other commentators, ome would have to find a way to corroborate what your subject were to tell you under such treatment. If it’s possible to check the facts you are told, then it could be effective. That is why the Americans were quite selective in who got the waterboard; they targeted people about whom they already knew a fair amount. If the target doesn’t know what their interrogators knows, they can’t selectively hide information in a consistent fashion.

    If all you know about your hypothetical terrorist is that he might have the combination to disable a bomb, then how are you going to check what he tells you? He might be setting you up to denotate the device via some anti-tampering system. On the other hand, how could you detect if someone had been mistakenly targeted?

    Of course, if we know for sure someone is the correct target, and there is a way to verify information from them, then how to get such information is down to ones conscience. In this scenario, almost anyone might be inclined to go ahead,

    It’s a bit like the capital punishment question, I think. We all know there are people that could deserve it, but how to ensure only they are subject to it?

    November 15th, 2010 at 22:57

  26. 200 says:

    Sadly, winding up MTG is but a happy by-product of my blog entries & since he is no longer welcome, due to the fact that he’s a twat, all his comments are removed so he merely wastes his time & effort when he tries to post his shite here.

    November 15th, 2010 at 23:49

  27. the_leander says:

    “Stop trying to confuse the issue.”

    Problem is, the issue isn’t that cut and dry and never is. But hey, lets play your scenario out.

    “The rules are that your child has a bomb strapped to him/her & you have the person who has the code to defuse it. no why have they kidnapped nonsense, just a pure & simple scenario.”

    I batter the ever loving shit out of them, type in the code they give me. The camera cuts to a scene in the street as the building we’re all in goes bang, a bit. Spreading all three of us over the interior like strawberry jam… My last words? “Ohshi..”

    Later on in the film you see my colleagues discussing me in terms such as “jackass”, “retard” and quite possibly “fucking liability” for having gone after the evildoer myself instead of waiting for our hero.

    As I said, my name isn’t (amongst others) Jack Ryan (clear and present danger, hunt for red october).

    I’m not a hero, I know enough about my own limitations to know I have no place in any such situation beyond the specific direction of the professionals.

    “Your 24-hours analogy is completely lost on me since I’ve never seen it & I wouldn’t know Jack Bauer if he jumped out of my porridge.”

    You’re not missing much tbh… How does the above name cover it?

    November 16th, 2010 at 01:00

  28. 200 says:

    so in short, you’d leave it to someone else, & the professionals come back & say, sorry, he won’t tell us, are your kids insured?

    November 16th, 2010 at 01:32

  29. boy on a bike says:

    Frankly 200, I’d suggest gutting the bastard with a rusty spoon – and I’d happily go searching through your cutlery drawer for the oldest, bluntest, rustiest looking spoon that you own.

    November 16th, 2010 at 08:21

  30. simon says:

    leander, what you really mean is that you wouldn’t use torture but would expect someone to do it for. You’d do that for 2 reasons:

    1/ If it worked you could feel all smug and righteous that you hadn’t taken part in the torture.

    2/ If it failed you could say “I told you so” as you slip in a claim for millions in compensation.

    November 16th, 2010 at 08:34

  31. SHIJURO... says:

    Fortunatly, leander isnt in charge.

    Please answer my question: if it doesnt work-why are security services personal trained to resist it? …and given the cav ‘everyone talks’?

    Who cares what terrorists think about our methods?

    I dont.

    November 16th, 2010 at 10:23

  32. the_leander says:

    “so in short, you’d leave it to someone else, & the professionals come back & say, sorry, he won’t tell us, are your kids insured?”

    Pretty certain I said that repeatedly in this thread as well as gave the reasons why.

    They have a better chance of survival in real terms if handled by people trained to deal with such situations than if I go in all guns blazing. Your proposed situation is a nonsense that doesn’t exist outside of this contrived logical fallacy.

    “leander, what you really mean is that you wouldn’t use torture but would expect someone to do it for you.”

    I said no such thing or implied it. I said I would not torture I’ve also said repeatedly that it is unacceptable on any grounds. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

    The choice given by 200 is a false dichotomy that only exists in fantasy. The real world does not work this way.

    “Please answer my question: if it doesnt work-why are security services personal trained to resist it? …and given the cav ‘everyone talks’?”

    As I have repeatedly said and you have wilfully ignored, it isn’t that it doesn’t make people “talk”, it’s that what they say cannot be trusted to be truth.

    But setting aside the moral arguments against torture for a moment, lets look at a practical reason why torture is a bad thing ™.

    Capacity.

    Whilst you’re busy digging through what is fantasy and reality, resources both in terms of processing the raw intel and assets on the ground are being tied up verifying what is being said. Real, reliable intelligence (you know, information that might actually keep people safe) isn’t being processed and investigated.

    “Who cares what terrorists think about our methods?”

    Guantanamo bay is the loudest and most effective recruiting sergeant the Taliban and Al Quieda ever had. All you’re doing is recruiting more people to take pot shots at our lads in Afghanistan whilst decreasing (in real terms) the effectiveness of our security services.

    “I dont.”

    And that’s the problem.

    November 16th, 2010 at 11:32

  33. Hogday says:

    Maybe exposure to the X Factor and `Strictly` 24/7 would be more effective? It certainly gets me begging to be killed.

    November 16th, 2010 at 18:46

  34. blueknight says:

    If torture doesn’t work, or is too unpleasant to use, what other options are available?

    November 16th, 2010 at 19:13

  35. Tony F says:

    The Comfy Chair?

    November 16th, 2010 at 19:57

  36. joe says:

    Really isn’t it a case of horses for courses?

    Yes, in the situation where you have the time to do a full classic WW2 style interrogation I’m sure the evidence will support a “torture doesn’t work” approach in terms of quality of results – BUT where you have a ticking bomb situation I suspect the only real option is “dirty”. Moreover in the present situation we are not dealing with an enemy who recognises any civilised rules of engagement and who adopts the standard guerilla tactic of claiming to have been tortured regardless! I agree with 200 – if you adopt a certain course you put yourself beyond the pale and have to accept the consequences.

    November 16th, 2010 at 23:30

  37. Anon says:

    If you’re going to look at waterboarding, consider examples such as Lise Lesevre. She was a courier for the French resistance who was captured by the Germans and tortured by Klaus Barbie for 19 days. The tortures he used included the Gestapo equivalent of waterboarding, ie putting her in a tub of freezing water, tying her legs to a bar and then using the bar to tip her head underwater time after time after time.

    Barbie even told her “in the end, everyone talks”. She didn’t and he sent her for “liquidation” but due to a mistake she survived and testified against him after the war.

    Barbie was executed for his crimes.

    He was trying to extract information from people he believed were terrorists, with the intention of saving German lives. A German tribunal found Lesevre guilty of terrorism.

    What’s the difference between Barbie’s justification and those of the Americans today? Sod all, except that the side with the upper hand is writing the accounts.

    What’s the fundamental failing of both? Neither can see beyond the need to achieve their immediate ends. It’s not that torture is inherently wrong. It’s not that information obtained under torture may or may not be reliable. It’s not even that using torture makes “us” more like “them”. No, the real problem with torture is that it inspires the friends, relatives and allies of the tortured to fight back against the torturers ever harder and more fanatically than before.

    I spent quite a bit of time studying Third World Revolutions and Counter-Insurgency Warfare. As so many revolutionary intellectuals, particularly Mao, realised, the more you force the state to use harsh and oppressive measures, the more the state undermines itself, distances itself from those who are its natural supporters, and isolates itself from allied states. And so it is with torture. By creating victims and martyrs, you inflame the situation, create more zealots, and weaken your own cause.

    So, taking 200′s example, if a terrorist had my children and torturing one of his colleagues may save them, there’s a terrible decision to be made.

    Do I torture the terrorist, get the information, save my children and then see everything I believe in eroded because my circle of friends and acquaintances are are horrified that I would stoop so low? I may well be imprisoned for my actions and I will undoubtedly inflame some of the terrorist’s friends, relatives and supporters into seeking revenge.

    Or do I accept the loss of my children and not torture the terrorist, knowing that by doing so people will be repulsed and revolted by the terrorists killing children? Their friends and supporters will find themselves losing support, being isolated and being reviled. I lose dearly, but by many measures a greater good may be served.

    Tough choices.

    (Of course, this is a gross over simplification of the options but some brevity is needed.)

    November 17th, 2010 at 10:07

  38. shijuro says:

    Do I torture the terrorist, get the information, save my children and then see everything I believe in eroded because my circle of friends and acquaintances are are horrified that I would stoop so low?

    err… yes… fcuk my friends. I can get more friends.

    November 17th, 2010 at 21:08

  39. A says:

    Scenario you describe has never happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario – common fallacy, useful for identifying crazies (because they use this “ticking timebomb” argument) but irrelevant when considering any real-world situations

    November 17th, 2010 at 22:05

  40. 200 says:

    A,

    yes, it’s not supposed to be about whether or not it is relevent to our current lives, it’s about an ethical debate about individual’s moral boundaries, well spotted.

    Either way, it clearly worked as this post has generated more replies than almost any other on this blog.

    My work here is done.

    November 17th, 2010 at 22:54

  41. shijuro says:

    You need waterboarding 200…

    That reminds me…

    Are you up for vol-redun?

    Most of the civvies in my force are…

    November 18th, 2010 at 07:25

  42. 200 says:

    shijuro,

    no idea, too early to tell

    November 18th, 2010 at 22:30

  43. shijuronotgeorgedixon says:

    All of our civvies have been given 28-days to make up their mind …

    We are losing at least 6…

    with the Police officers we are losing (and have lost) that makes our Operations Dept down by ten-an entire shift…

    We are expected to do more work too…

    hey ho…

    November 19th, 2010 at 11:43

Leave a comment