Walsingham

Are you serious, Pop? Last night I found out an old school acquaintance of mine had died of cancer. Hit me excessively hard. I guess echoes or something. Anyway, I was in a ruck, and decidedthe best solution was to go listen to a Kate Bush cover band. I hate Kate Bush and sure enough it completely took my mind off my woe. It was fantastically depressing, because not only is Kate Bush's music awful, but teh girl doing the singing was clearly hugely talented. It was like seeing a michelin chef flipping woppers.

Well, it doesn't really have a sm... look, this is all going a bit blue. Going back to coffee breath. I used to think I had coffee breath. I just wasn't cleaning my gumline properly. I put forward the hypothesis that coffeee drinkers are stressed older folks who are often ignorant of proper oral hygeine.

I'm not. I can't afford to!

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what? How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much. @Wals: thanks for the recommendation. I'm adding that to my wishlist - even if it completely misses the point. I haven't disputed the effectiveness of interrogation methods that don't involve torture, even if it's impossible for any technique to reach 100% success rate. I also don't accept your rationale that using it would mean sacrificing one's morality, as that concedes the point that torture is the wrong choice. Sorry old boy but you're not going to win this one so easily. Cool. I'm sure you'll enjoy the read. I guess my line of argument is simply that one can make moral choices which are analogous with physical choices. That is I would not be consistent with my general experience that one can do oneself a disservice and yet achieve good for others. However, as I say, if you take what I hope is an enlightened view of many things then the 'moral' choice often happens to be the cynically self-serving one. I suppose mainly because immoral choices catalyse opposition to whatever you are doing. I say again that it's like asking me if it would be moral to stick my hand in the toaster - why would I do so? To address your point more seriously, I would argue that functinoality is a component of morality. If I fling kittens into the sea I may be regarded as evil. But if those kittens are rabid, then I am protecting others. Or am I being crude? @WoD LOL yes, you cross-check. But all the cross referencing in the world won't help you if you're being fed gibberish. But, since you are a big fan of torture, please point me out a state which employs torture and has a great success record of counter-terrorism.

Me: Ooh, holographic ultra-chess. Youth: That's a parking meter.

In fact scientific studies have proven that it is YOU who are getting slower. The games merely seem to be passing at high speed.

You make a good point, Steve. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an influencing factor. But I'm not sure that entirely accounts for culpability. Sounds rather like the 'she was asking for it' defence.

You don't laugh at the dumb kid? My friend you are just shutting out the sunshine!

And that's the last we heard of Guard Dog. LOL. If your bones and joints can take it you should go for a run. Best hangover cure ever.

Fine. Cleavage. You happy now? honestly, some people...

Wearing a crucifix isn't a mandatory aspect of the faith, though. Kind of obvious when you think about it. Would have been a bit morbid before the guy died.

As much as I rate your college level experience of torture, I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. I mentioned the torture thing to a friend of mine who worked with the ANC in South Africa and he said that yes, people break under torture, but breaking and providing useful timely information are completely different things. Judging by all the interest, I think several people here would benefit from picking up 'The Interrogator's War'. It runs through 90% of what I've heard and it does so in an engaging style. Going back to Numbers' point: yes. I think it would be an interesting question of sacrifice. To surerender one's morality to serve and protect teh innocent. I say that having considered it long before I ever got involved with the Forces. But fortunately it turns out I won't have to make that distinction. It's rather like asking me if it's moral to smear myself in honey and run through a kindergarten to cure someone of cancer. It just fails to compute.

I don't know what you mean. I have a second PC in my office for my assistant.

I knew you chaps would inevitably come up with possibilities that were far more superb and hilarious than the one I was thinking of. Well, maybe. I mean I think I know the best smell ever.

Every intelligence agency does it. You're not going to get any information by just asking nicely. Ow. I just quite literally and physically hit myself in the side of the head. ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? TORTURE WORKS IN THE MOVIES. JUST LIKE EXPLODING CARS, AND HAVING SEX WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON. CAN WE PLEASE DROP THIS RIDICULOUS AND DANGEROUS FANTASY? PLEASE? As mad as it may soundpulling someone's fingernails out doesn't make them tell you what you need to know. And sometimes - not always but sometimes - asking someone questions in a forceful but humane way does. Particularly if the only reason they are your enemy is the fact that they think you go about torturing people.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X. Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars. Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay? The only thing missing is the Codename E for the attack on a population center. and then everyone in your scenario could go to SEXPO and have a big party. Can I change my answer to 'have a party?' I didn't realise that was an option.

I listened to the whole album through three times. I got used to it, but it didn't hit me square, to be honest.

Actually. I thought it was kinda funny.

Whoah there, hoss. You hate coffee? How can you possibly hate the smell of fresh coffee? It's the second best smell in the world, after *ahem* anyway... we'll leave that, even if it is nearly St Valentine's Day.

Not to put too fine a point on it: FETH psychometrics. Feth them right in the ear.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X. Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars. Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay? Frankly in the scenario you describe I would say yes. This is why I consider torture both repugnant and retarded. But your method P is a fiction. I do not just refer to anecdotal evidence or historical conjecture. Studies of trauma indicate that torture type treatment will not only predispose a subject to oppose you but actively inhibit the ability of a subject to cooperate, and to even retreive basic information. I am annoyed because this fantasy dilemma leads to people being tortured all over teh place by men who hate the concept but believe mistakenly that they are protecting others by employing these methods. I do not think it is a coincidence that condoning these sorts of methods arose during a period where the security services pressed every available halfwit into service at the front line. Just look at the British experience in NOrthern Ireland. Our period of greatest success coincided with a drive to obey the principles of law, and our worst failures have associated with the reverse.

While Im sure you're being sarcastic, its a good question. Asking nicely doesnt work and with every form of inconveniencing them being classified as torture, we're left with few option until reliable chemical or mechanical forms are discovered. *sigh* Not this again. While the desk jockeys at MI5 may occasionally hold the occasional torture party for the odd Yankee Walter Mitty the simple 'fact' I've absorbed from every experienced soldier I've ever spoken to is that torture doesn't extract useful information. I mean just think about it. If torturing people worked then there would have been zero resistance movements against the nazis. Instead of a bazillion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ter...e-cover-up.html I'm not 100% certain that this is the worst torture imaginable. But nonetheless it is worrying. Very worrying.

Yes. Good idea. Making them illegal would mean tehy'd die out completely. Like heroin or cocaine.

I know you don't like Bambam, but come on. You shouldn't need crib notes to recall anything as simple as ... I've forgotten what her notes said. Something about tax cuts, and raising spirits?