RE: Is it necessary (was: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.)?

From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 14:44:24 MDT

  • Next message: Erik Aronesty: "Re: Is it necessary (was: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.)?"

    Jake Sapiens
     Subject: Is it necessary (was: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.)?

    I remember having this conversation in regular chat with Lucifer some time
    back where we were debating the ethics of using torture. I was left with
    the impression that well trained interrogators using drugs/truth serum that
    subjects were more likely to spill the beans and probably feel real nice
    while doing so, possibly even conveniently forgetting the conversation
    later. Is my understanding of this wrong, or is it really necessary to
    torture/abuse people to get what we want out of them? I was under the
    impression that information obtained under duress was actually not terribly
    reliable. Somebody please disabuse me of this if I am wrong.

    [Blunderov] DrSebby posted an experience of his in which he was convinced
    that it is entirely possible to use drugs in this way.

    But questions remain. How different is this, ethically speaking, from
    employing a 'date-rape' drug even if the victims remember nothing and suffer
    no physical consequences?

    The answer might be, I suppose, that in the case of the interrogation, it
    achieves a useful purpose. But what if it doesn't? Does it then become, so
    to speak, date-rape? Or is it OK to argue that it MIGHT have had a useful
    purpose?

    Some other interesting questions are

    'How willing are you to have that same treatment meted out to you own
    troops?' if the answer to this is yes, fine, then

    'How would you feel if the other side was perfectly happy to have you
    practice no holds barred torture THEIR troops just so long as they can
    torture some of yours?

    Which is why, I suppose, the Geneva Convention was invented. Talking of
    which, Jonathan mentioned the other day that the Geneva Convention needed
    renovations in order to be properly relevant to modern times and I think he
    may be right; certainly it should make provisions for legal terrorism in
    cases where the oppressed have no reasonable alternative, or where the
    citizens of a country have been subjected to an illegal war of aggression.

    Of course, to be fair, unrestricted torture would allowed too. (Please don't
    anyone take this for snide, I am just feeling a bit bleak and bitter at the
    world in general. It'll pass.)

    Best Regards

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 23 2004 - 14:45:20 MDT