civilised societies have started flirting once again with the idea that torture might be acceptable

OP i am a little bit confused by your title, specially the words "civilised societies".
Is it possible to call those societies who advocate torture as you have mentioned civilised?

Regardless of how advanced in technology these societies may be, it is evident that they can not possibily be called civilised.

The Vatican...the richest organization in the WORLD.

I sure wouldn't want to be in Rome on the day all those roosters make it home.

Assuming you are using the Bush definition of civilised i.e. westernised, I'd say they have gone way past flirting.... the've married the idea and are awaiting their first grandchild!

For the record the Bush definition of civilised is a propaganda exercise - the phycopaths weapon of dehumanising the victim in order to abuse without conceince - I see you've bought into it!

there is nothing wrong with torture.... if the lives of your ppl count on the information held by a terrorist.... we should go to every lenght to extract it from them

holy canolli

Kunaes

That is a direct quote from the archbishop. When he said it, his tone indicated the word "civilised" was being used with a hint of irony... to outline the very contradiction you do

I wonder, AC who advocates torture by nations which claim tobring freedom, democracy and lawfulness to other nations, would you be pleased to be tortured for information you didn't have, but we all rested easy knowing you were no threat?

Freyja

Only yesterday I was lunching with a methodist lay preacher who had been to europe a couple of years ago and we were discussing our visits tot he vatican. I suggested that should jesus make his prophesised Second Coming, I would imagine he'd make a bee-line for the Vatican and their money-changing tables.

Great minds aye?

same stuff, different crowd

All through this torture thing, I keep thinking about the time when the sh*t hits the fan. If I'm lucky enough to be outside of the FEMA concentration camps, I wonder to what lengths I would go to remain outside.

987...if you are anything close to me you will die first.

When a nation or civilization has to resort to torture to dehumanize their suspected enemy, they have opened up the door to a whole range of other practices which will destroy that nation/civilization human rights. For centuries, nations the M.E and Africa has been using torture to get their way, and look at the state of some of those nations. If it was not for the M.E oil trade systems, set up by the west, many in the M.E would still be in the dark ages. For western nations to bow down to a dark age practice, shows just what spirit is again trying to take control. It is no surprise that roman catholics will soon have the majority of power in the U.S supreme court, and with a ex-Nazi as the pope in Rome, it looks like the old ways of taking care of business will soon again become popular. Once the western world again embraces the tactics of torture to defend its freedom, they have lowered their standards, blurring the justifications and undermining the moral authority, to why they need to use torture as a legal tool of war, to bring them peace.

Torturing someone for information is something that civilised people would prefer not to have to engage in, however it is always an option in extreme circumstances - simply on a greatest good argument, in the usa it is reasonably mild and non harmfull and is after all perpetrated on those who are conspiring to commit mass-murder on a grand scale. Torture as used in all the islamic dictatorships, is routine, sadistic, brutal often deadly and is used for coercing false confessions, silenceing dissent and subjugation.


The spectacle of the hysterical denunciation of the usa by the leftists as though they were comparable with the nazi's, contrasted with thier complete and utter silence about human right abuses in other countries is something that turns my stomach.

The ends justify the means argument.

In my experience most of the people you label as "libbies" are equal opportunity abhorrent of acts of torture...it's the torure they abhor not the political persuasion of the perpetrator.

I haven't met a single person, on ANY political side who believes Saddam Hussein was anything other than a greedy, viscious dictator.

To commit similar acts to those abhorred is odd.

gee you don;t think that the 76% Religion figure has made us more than a little wacked in the States!?!?!?

Well, it's interesting to observe that an "Islamic" Country is dangerous, but a 76% Christian one is balanced and free?

'.it's the torure they abhor not the political persuasion of the perpetrator.'


The point is that any civilised person abhors torture - but those of us who live in the real world have to make uncomfortable decisions, and have to be fixated on the reality of the world as it is presented to us - not retreat into some ethical insulated never never land, where we can live in our perfect little PC world and are always on the side of the good and pure and it's only those nasty people who seem to be in charge of everything that are doing all the bad things.

"The point is that any civilised person abhors torture - but those of us who live in the real world have to make uncomfortable decisions,"

what you have done is contradicted yourself. Or at least made the statement that those who make uncomfortable decisions are not "civilised persons"...they cannot be because your definition of a civilised person is one who abhors torture. One who abhors it does not order it, or practice it.

I wonder, given your "real life" "uncomfortable decisions" theory, that it is then lied about. (rhetorical)

What does civilized mean?

rut row

miscreant wants the definition of civilised.

who's translation?

It's very strange how certain words trigger different perceptions in people. I've never liked the word civilized. It makes me think of tea parties and white gloves while the stench of sewers swirl.

Sophia - you are talking gibberish, please try to make more sense.

Why, "civilised" means "better than those other people as proclaimed by myself"...

i would have to agree miscreant. i also have the creeps with morales.

it could mean many things,,, i wish it meant fairness, and a low impact life style, healthy foods, no corporations, no goverments,, that seems civilized to me

Miscreant

I can say that the archbishop's tongue was firmly in his cheek (top) when he chose that word.

let's hope it stays there too Sophia

"The bishop's tongue was in his cheek."

Thank you. I'm glad to know that.

Freyja

LOLOLOL Freyja

Of course I can't speak for the Pope's tongue!


Miscreant

That was kind of the point, he was making a dig at those western nations who hold themselves up as the cornerstones of freedom, democracy, fair play and righteousness yet practice torture...