"Make torture legal" - Deakin University Academic
fasgnadh
"Make torture legal"
- The Age 17/5/2005
"Torture should be legalised and is
a "morally defensible" interrogation method,
even if it causes the death of innocent people,
according to an article by two Victorian academics
that has sparked outrage here and overseas."
I'm not sure why those who support the war in
Iraq would be upset by this, Rumsfeld has openly
stated that the Geneva convention does not apply
to prisoners in Gitmo, and it has been used
in 'systemic abuse' by USSA war criminals.
"In a paper soon to be published in an American
law journal, the head of Deakin University's
Law School, Professor Mirko Bagaric, and a fellow
Deakin law lecturer, Julie Clarke, argue that when
many lives are in imminent danger, "all forms of harm"
may be inflicted on the suspect, even if this
resulted in "annihilation".
Based on the lies told by politicians about the
imminent danger of non-existent WMD's in Iraq,
that POV would seem to justify the torture
of every last man woman and child in Iraq for
refusing to hand over the WMD's.
Haven't the ones already abused been enough?
"And even before their paper has been printed,
Professor Bagaric and Mrs Clarke have begun
receiving hate mail from students and staff
at Deakin University, as well as being heavily
criticised by some of their legal peers."
Perhaps the above example of their torture
policy led people to see their views as
'an imminent danger' warranting extreme
sanctions? B^p
It is a slippery slide into the Abyss.
"Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected
to be criticised for his views, particularly on
torturing innocent people."
I wonder why he would think that? Years
of tory immorality has completely dulled
public decency.
"Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict
harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer,"
said Professor Bagaric, who has been head of
Deakin's law school for more than two years."
Frightening. I wonder how many posters to
aus.legal are graduates from the Bachelor
Degree in Gulags and Genocide?
Howard's immigration Stasi?
"But in some extreme cases, where it is almost
certain someone has information that could
prevent many lives being lost and there is
no other way to obtain that information, the
mere fact that they're not directly involved
in creating that threat doesn't mean they can
wash their hands of responsibility."
It's the 'almost certain' that troubles
most sane people.. that and the electrodes
on the genitals.
Don't be surprised if this bloke becomes
a special White House counsel.
"Asked if he believed interrogators should be
able to legally torture an innocent person to
death if they had evidence the person knew
about a major public threat, such as the
September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric
replied: "Yes, you could."
Clearly this man represents an imminent threat.
We should start with him.
"He went on: "Let's say that straight after
the first plane hit in New York you had a
person in custody who admitted they had
overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and
knew there were going to be further attacks,
but then refused to say any more. In those
circumstances you would start with a minimum
degree of harm, if that didn't work, you
would escalate it."
What if they were Cornelia Rau, and hallucinated
the 'overheard' hearsay? This idiot would not
merely wrongfully detain her, but torture her,
to death? And even her being innocent would
not deter him!
What if she misheard, what if she's lying, what if
the person she overheard is lying, what if they are
both as crazy as these academics?
And how many cases in which torture would be applied
would have even this degree of artificially constructed
clarity?
Most torture is a FISHING expedition, and my understanding is
that the military do not highly regard intel obtained
under torture. When the cattle prod is inserted people
will admit to being Beelzebub and riding the goat on All Saints Eve.
The interrogation of 'witches' in the Inquisition is a classic;
given the hot lead enema, women confessed to sexual congress
with cloven hooved beasts..
..of course they might have been on one of Ned's trips to Mexico..
"And if that unfortunately resulted in an innocent person being killed,
in those circumstances that would be justified. I think as a society we
would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
The Witching pond.. if they drown they were not a witch,
if they don't drown they have been supernaturally aided
and should be burnt as a witch.
What could an innocent person, placed in the hands of
Professor Mengeler, possibly do.. except suffer horribly
and die.
Fuck it. I would prefer to die than have the blood
of ONE innocent person on my hands.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen.
"The director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture,
Paris Aristotle, said he was shocked when a colleague sent him a copy of
the paper, which will appear in the July edition of the University of
San Francisco Law Review.
"It's the most extreme argument that I've seen for torture, and at many
levels it's the shallowest," he said. "Torture is not just the physical
application of pain, but requires the complete subjugation of the person
at emotional, psychological and spiritual levels, too. To assume that
once the physical pain has disappeared that there are no deep scars left
behind is simply ignorant of how torture really works, but the authors
conveniently skim over that aspect of it." Entitled Not Enough
(Official) Torture In The World?, the paper cites Amnesty International
reports of torture and ill-treatment in 132 countries to argue that
international bans have not stopped torture, and it should therefore be
regulated to allow greater public scrutiny.
But Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters, SC, attacked that proposal
as illogical, saying, "this article is a stain" on Deakin University's
reputation.
"If you accept that torture is widespread and should therefore be
legalised, why wouldn't we then legalise crime? Let's sell licences for
people to practice their favourite crimes, criminals would be so much
more accountable. That is the level of debate this argument turns on and
it is absolutely pathetic," he said.
Amnesty International spokeswoman Nicole Bieske, who is also a lawyer,
was stunned by the idea of regulating torture. "It's astonishing and
appalling that somebody would hold this opinion in relation to such a
fundamental issue as torture, and to be justifying it on moral as well
as pragmatic grounds," Ms Bieske said.
One of the Deakin staff members to have condemned the paper is the
director of psychoanalytic studies, Justin Clemens.
He called the pair's argument "disgusting in the extreme, and
symptomatic of a failure of contemporary legal ethics".
Professor Bagaric said that one of the reasons that he and Mrs Clarke
had submitted the paper to a American law journal was because they are
more open to new ideas on human rights.
"What has surprised me is how different the reaction has been in the US
and Australia," he said. "At my talk in the US, some people were for
torture, some were against, but most people realised there were
different sides of the argument.
"You didn't get the kind of emotive comments that I've had here in
Australia, saying that this view is horrendous, unthinking, and
irresponsible."
"Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a
person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S11 organisers'
plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused
to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum
degree of harm. If that didn't work, you would escalate it ... I think
as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save
thousands is legitimate."
Professor Mirko Bagaric, head of Deakin University's Law School
"This article is a stain on Deakin University's reputation."
Brian Walters SC, Liberty Victoria president
"It's the most extreme argument that I've seen for torture."
Paris Aristotle, Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture
B J Foster
>
> "Make torture
http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/images/CHAMBERs.jpg
legal"
> - The Age 17/5/2005
...
> ...If that didn't work, you would escalate it ... I think
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>
>>
>> "Make torture legal"
>
> http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/images/CHAMBERs.jpg
"Torture advocate to quit refugee tribunal"
- May 17, 2005 - 4:55PM
"A Melbourne law professor who has defended
the use of torture in exceptional circumstances
will quit the Refugee Review Tribunal."
Now there's a shock!
"Refugee advocacy groups have called for the head
of the Deakin Law School, Mirko Bagaric,"
...on a pikestaff?
Surely resignation is sufficient!? B^D
"to resign as from the tribunal,saying his defence
of torture was untenable in a role where he would
have contact with survivors of torture."
I still have concerns about him having contact
with students.. as the success of the tories
shows, there are already enough heartless bastards;
"However, a spokesman for Immigration Minister
Amanda Vanstone has confirmed that the former
policeman will keep working on the Migration
Review Tribunal - which handles visa applications
that do not involve refugees - when he returns
from an unspecified period of leave."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA!
Mandy and Mengeler! The intellectual driving force
of tory immigration policy revealed!
Is anyone surprised at the company the Minister
for Deporting Citizens is keeping?
...
"Professor Bagaric is one of several part-time members
appointed to both tribunals."
Chris Cooley
wrote:
Nothing wrong with torturing ragheads. They only too happy to do it
us, ask Douglas Woods' family.
Don H
news:4289DF9A...@yahoo.com.au...
because of revulsion at its barbarism and inhumanity, but also because it is
ineffective - a person will confess to anything to alleviate the pain. And,
naturally, what we do unto others, gives them excuse to do unto us. The
fact that some nations use torture doesn't mean others should do so; one
justification for invasion of Iraq was precisely that the Saddam Hussein
regime used torture and should be overthrown. The instance of "9/11" has
been quoted as justification; but was this war-on-American-soil (horrors!)
so terrible that anything is justified in seeking revenge? Or should an
explanation, as to why it occurred at all, be sought? Of course, if you
enjoy torturing people, then that's a different matter - let's start by
making academics recant their evil ideas (or is torture only meant to apply
to other people? never to oneself?)
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Make torture legal"
> - The Age 17/5/2005
I can remember when the torture allegations against the US
first started surfacing in Afghanistan, the Israelis,
obviously having no success with warning the Bush
administration face to face, started warning Rebublican
leaning thinktanks in the US like Heritage Foundation and
the American Enterprise Institute about how information
extracted by torture is of dubious value and wastes vasts
amounts of time and resources trying to validate stuff which
is too often just made up.
I also remember an article a few years ago in either the
Weekend Australia magazine or the Fin Review magazine where
they interviewed one of the top field commanders of the Sri
Lankan security services.He told the story of how they
picked up two Tamil Tigers who were supposed to deliver a
car bomb.However, the Sri Lankans were too late and the bomb
had already been placed and was set to go off at some time
during the day.The two Tamils wouldnt talk so the commander
told them that they had a choice, the person who tells where
the bomb is walks free or they die.He flipped a coin,
approached the first man and asked him where the bomb was,
he wouldnt say, so the Security bloke shot him in the
head.The other bomb planter caved in, told him where the
bomb was and when it was to go off.
The bomb was diffused, removed and detonated safely.The bomb
was a van full of explosives, one of the biggest bombs the
Tigers had made, and was sitting in the middle of one of the
largest markets in Columbo.It would have killed and injured
hundreds of innocent people should it have detonated.
Theres a place for torture - but its a very very very small
place.
dechucka
"Chris Cooley" <hillsafe...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:t5vj81tr61jr7nr5i...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:06:05 +1000, B J Foster <bjfo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with torturing ragheads. They only too happy to do it
> us, ask Douglas Woods' family.
what about Christian, whites or your mother?
Eunometic
fasgnadh wrote:
> "Make torture legal"
> - The Age 17/5/2005
>
> "Torture should be legalised and is
> a "morally defensible" interrogation method,
> even if it causes the death of innocent people,
> according to an article by two Victorian academics
> that has sparked outrage here and overseas."
That is what Israel thought, torture is acceptable to save lives, and
now they have suicide bombers for their trouble and hatred 10 times
greater than they otherwise would have. Suicide bombers kill
themselves so that they are 100% sure that they can not be tortured and
thereby be forced to disclose information.
The Germans strictly stuck with the rules for the treatment of
prisoners and POW with nations of that had signed the agreement. The
bolshevicks however had not signed (presumably becuase the communists
were rather busy commiting massive atrocities on ethnic and political
dissidents from their socialist dreamworld) and therefore the eastern
front degenerated into atrocity.
However the same justifcation was used by the occaisional Nazi
torturers, who after all only wanted to save the lives of their
soldiers from un-uniformed unlawfull combatents. Note that they WERE
unlawfull cobatents as the Nazis negotiated surrender treaties with
nations like France and Yugoslavia.
Peter
altogether.
PDW
sillypieces
They should just add - as long as you're american on the bottom there so
people don't get confused.
Wasn't the other excuse for invading Iraq that he is a horrible dictator
that tortures and kills people... but now its okay because an american
university says so. yay.
Ridiculous world we live in.
-- sillypieces
Addinall
sillypieces wrote:
> They should just add - as long as you're american on the bottom there
so
> people don't get confused.
> Wasn't the other excuse for invading Iraq that he is a horrible
dictator
> that tortures and kills people... but now its okay because an
american
> university says so. yay.
Deakin is not in any part of America.
Mark Addinall.
Lucas, Peter
news:1116399636.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> sillypieces wrote:
>> They should just add - as long as you're american on the bottom there
> so
>> people don't get confused.
>> Wasn't the other excuse for invading Iraq that he is a horrible
> dictator
>> that tortures and kills people... but now its okay because an
> american
>> university says so. yay.
>
> Deakin is not in any part of America.
>
That's right!! It's in some shitty hole called Geelong!! :-)
--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia
"There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace
as soon as they can be convinced it is generally adopted"
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
Franc Zabkar
>"Asked if he believed interrogators should be
>able to legally torture an innocent person to
>death if they had evidence the person knew
>about a major public threat, such as the
>September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric
>replied: "Yes, you could."
> Clearly this man represents an imminent threat.
This "ticking bomb" scenario is a clear case where unusual force is
justified. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people would
agree with him. In any case, I notice that you avoided answering this
question. Now let me ask you point blank. Would you sacrifice 3000
innocent people to uphold your lofty principles? Yes or no?
Here's an even easier question. If you could go back in time and
strangle baby Adolf, future murderer and torturer of millions, in his
crib, would you?
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
dechucka
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4k3m81lakgtj59cde...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:12:10 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>"Asked if he believed interrogators should be
>>able to legally torture an innocent person to
>>death if they had evidence the person knew
>>about a major public threat, such as the
>>September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric
>>replied: "Yes, you could."
>
>> Clearly this man represents an imminent threat.
>
> This "ticking bomb" scenario is a clear case where unusual force is
> justified. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people would
> agree with him. In any case, I notice that you avoided answering this
> question. Now let me ask you point blank. Would you sacrifice 3000
> innocent people to uphold your lofty principles? Yes or no?
of course not and how many people would you torure to uphold yours?
>
> Here's an even easier question. If you could go back in time and
> strangle baby Adolf, future murderer and torturer of millions, in his
> crib, would you?
to what purpose? you are assuming that Hitler was the cause of WW2. Please
go back to high school and write a 2000 word essay on the causes of WW2 and
than come back when you understand what you are talking about.
Eunometic
by torture in other countries (torture in countries other than Britain)
to save lives. It may not be used to prosecute. I guess that is one
sort of limitation but it is perhaps the thin edge of the wedge.
Heretic
What are you raving about? In what sense did a UK court allow the use
of information obtained by torture? What wedge?
It presumably wouldn't allow it because of the normal hearsay rule in any
type of case.
Brian Bosley
"dechucka" <dech...@vhotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Y5Fie.133$Eb5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
he was making. Hitler was about his foul deeds for years before
September 1939 which you should know from your high school
education. However, I would be interested in your views on how
blameless this animal was.
Don H
news:BpHie.168$Eb5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
wouldn't have been a WWII. Hitler was himself a product of his times, and
if he hadn't existed then another of his gang (of thugs off the street)
would have taken his place. Hitler and the Nazis were by no means
blameless, but there are many factors which contribute to a world-war, and
being a potential dictator is only one. There was Mussolini in Italy, Franco
in Spain, and Hirohito (and Tojo) in Japan; not forgetting Stalin in Russia.
It was an age of dictators, fascism, and totalitarian states.
Franc Zabkar
<dech...@vhotmail.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4k3m81lakgtj59cde...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:12:10 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>"Asked if he believed interrogators should be
>>>able to legally torture an innocent person to
>>>death if they had evidence the person knew
>>>about a major public threat, such as the
>>>September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric
>>>replied: "Yes, you could."
>>
>>> Clearly this man represents an imminent threat.
>>
>> This "ticking bomb" scenario is a clear case where unusual force is
>> justified. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people would
>> agree with him. In any case, I notice that you avoided answering this
>> question. Now let me ask you point blank. Would you sacrifice 3000
>> innocent people to uphold your lofty principles? Yes or no?
>
>of course not ...
I'm relieved to hear it. The question boils down to a choice between
two evils. You picked the correct one.
Having said that, I couldn't bring myself to legalise torture under
any circumstances. I realise I'm being hypocritical, but I see it as
one of those things that should be handled discreetly, with tacit
approval, in desperate situations, and with great trepidation.
> ... and how many people would you torure to uphold yours?
I'd kill 3000 murderers to save one innocent victim.
>> Here's an even easier question. If you could go back in time and
>> strangle baby Adolf, future murderer and torturer of millions, in his
>> crib, would you?
>
>to what purpose?
Eh?
>you are assuming that Hitler was the cause of WW2.
Blatant obfuscation. Apparently my question was too difficult for you.
>Please
>go back to high school and write a 2000 word essay on the causes of WW2 and
>than come back when you understand what you are talking about.
When I left school I swore that I would never write another essay. My
scribblings in Usenet are as close as I get.
Ned Latham
in <4289DF9A...@yahoo.com.au>:
More of his hypocritical posturing. Nothing relevant to act-b.
----snip----
> "Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected
> to be criticised for his views, particularly on
> torturing innocent people."
>
> I wonder why he would think that? Years
> of tory immorality has completely dulled
> public decency.
Oh, get off the moral bandwagon, you hypocrite. That shit just makes for
dogmatic disputes. There's just one useful criticism of that idiotic
proposal those two academic dummies have put forward...
Torture doesn't work.
The Catholics' Inquisition found that out centuries ago. That's why they
gave it up (that's right, Virginia: it wasn't for compassionate reasons).
----snip----
Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <428A6E...@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
dechucka
and you know these people are murderers how? you are absolutley convinced
that these people are murdererss?. Looking at history a percentage of people
are shown to be innocent even after conviction in courts. So how many
innocent people out of these 300 are you willing to kill to save one person
>
>>> Here's an even easier question. If you could go back in time and
>>> strangle baby Adolf, future murderer and torturer of millions, in his
>>> crib, would you?
>>
>>to what purpose?
>
> Eh?
>
>>you are assuming that Hitler was the cause of WW2.
>
> Blatant obfuscation. Apparently my question was too difficult for you.
would killing Hitler have stopped WW2 or the killings that occured, go back
and read you history books.
>
>>Please
>>go back to high school and write a 2000 word essay on the causes of WW2
>>and
>>than come back when you understand what you are talking about.
>
> When I left school I swore that I would never write another essay. My
> scribblings in Usenet are as close as I get.
If your scibings on the internt are any indication of your essays at school
I would have vowed never to write another essay given that 0 was a high mark
for you
Addinall
Lucas, Peter wrote:
> "Addinall" <addi...@addinall.org> who is a closet loony wrote in
> news:1116399636.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > sillypieces wrote:
> >> They should just add - as long as you're american on the bottom
there
> > so
> >> people don't get confused.
> >> Wasn't the other excuse for invading Iraq that he is a horrible
> > dictator
> >> that tortures and kills people... but now its okay because an
> > american
> >> university says so. yay.
> >
> > Deakin is not in any part of America.
> >
>
>
> That's right!! It's in some shitty hole called Geelong!! :-)
You got that fucking on the spot. What a cold shithole!
No wonder I marched into the Little Street 29 odd years
ago. Still, earning heaps, so I can pay you the money
I owe ya! Picked up a bottle of 71 HOG. I'll be back in QLD
next weekend (but only for a weekend).
Love to the missus. I meet the rat lady this weekend.
Mark.
Lucas, Peter
>
> Picked up a bottle of 71 HOG.
Who'd you have to kill to get that??!!
Seeing as the '82 is at optimum drinking in 2007, it might be a 'now' buy
:-)
> I'll be back in QLD
> next weekend (but only for a weekend).
See if we can't meet up somewhere.
I might be over that way then.
> Love to the missus.
Will do.
> I meet the rat lady this weekend.
Give her a smooch for me :-)
And tell her I've forgiven her for killing my namesake ;-)
fasgnadh
>
Twenty four replies indicate others don't agree with
you, Net Kook.
In fact you are one of the replies! B^D
Why is it that not even Ned agrees with Ned's idiocy!? B^D
thats 24 more people who read and are stimulated by
my ideas sufficiently to respond, compared with the
average response of ZERO to your regular repost of
your personal biography, the Faux Fark.
Face it Ned, you are a hopeless loser. B^)
>
>>"Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected
>>to be criticised for his views, particularly on
>>torturing innocent people."
>>
>> I wonder why he would think that? Years
>> of tory immorality has completely dulled
>> public decency.
>
>
> Oh, get off the moral bandwagon, you hypocrite.
Morality is always appropriate Ned, even if immoral
maggots such as you can't understand why.
> There's just one useful criticism of that idiotic
> proposal those two academic dummies have put forward...
>
One which you snipped from my post, you derivative tool! B^D
>> the military do not highly regard intel obtained
>> under torture. When the cattle prod is inserted people
>> will admit to being Beelzebub and riding the goat on All Saints Eve.
>>
>> The interrogation of 'witches' in the Inquisition is a classic;
>> given the hot lead enema, women confessed to sexual congress
>> with cloven hooved beasts..
Now watch the Net Kook, having snipped my idea,
present it as his own original, all the while
accompanied by his hysterical and hypocritical
jealous screeching at teh success of my threads.
> Torture doesn't work.
>
> The Catholics' Inquisition found that out centuries ago. That's why they
> gave it up (that's right, Virginia: it wasn't for compassionate reasons).
>
Imitation, the sincerest form of flattery,
even if it's from a Net Kook!
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/ned_nkoty.html
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
"Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected
to be criticised for his views, particularly on
torturing innocent people."
I wonder why he would think that? Years
of tory immorality has completely dulled
public decency.
"Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict
Peter
wrote:
>
>fasgnadh wrote:
>> "Make torture legal"
>> - The Age 17/5/2005
>>
>> "Torture should be legalised and is
>> a "morally defensible" interrogation method,
>> even if it causes the death of innocent people,
>> according to an article by two Victorian academics
>> that has sparked outrage here and overseas."
>
>
Many, many years ago there was a Hector Crawford radio drama (99% sure
that was the source) which i think was based on reality where a man
planted a time bomb on an ocean liner to try and collect a ransom. He
was detained, but he would not spill the beans. The ship was too far
away to get him there in time, but a sister ship was nearby. They
bundled him blindfolded into the engineroom of the sister ship and
minaged to convince him he was on the ship with the bomb. He talked.
In many cases, and with skilled interrogation, the requisite
information will be forthcoming.
I therefore cannot understand why that law dean is contemplating
torture and (so it seems) even suggesting how it be carried out. I
thought that there are quite sufficient areas for legal research
without having to select such a grotesque topic.
Assuming a government is interested in having the torture option open,
surely it would develop the policies and processes under strictest
secrecy. I can think of two mechanisms under normal British type law
to accommodate this without the need for special legislation which
would sully the law and for ever attract criticism.
My view is that the Dean has done his law school and wider University
great harm by doing research on such a topic. Why does he not pick a
more apt topic such as 'Racial Discrimination in Queensland Courts',
or 'Offences Relating to the Taking of Melbourne Trams'.
.
dechucka
"Peter" <pet...@parazzdise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:428c674e...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On 17 May 2005 19:18:36 -0700, "Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>fasgnadh wrote:
>>> "Make torture legal"
>>> - The Age 17/5/2005
>>>
>>> "Torture should be legalised and is
>>> a "morally defensible" interrogation method,
>>> even if it causes the death of innocent people,
>>> according to an article by two Victorian academics
>>> that has sparked outrage here and overseas."
>>
>>
> Many, many years ago there was a Hector Crawford radio drama (99% sure
> that was the source) which i think was based on reality where a man
> planted a time bomb on an ocean liner to try and collect a ransom. He
> was detained, but he would not spill the beans. The ship was too far
> away to get him there in time, but a sister ship was nearby. They
> bundled him blindfolded into the engineroom of the sister ship and
> minaged to convince him he was on the ship with the bomb. He talked.
you are basing your understanding of human psychology on a radio drama WOW
Ned Latham
Another failed attempt to claim priority on something I said
years before he did. Nothing relevant to act-b.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> * More of his hypocritical posturing. Nothing relevant to act-b.
(Guano's forgeries of my post undone.)
> Twenty four replies indicate others don't agree with
> you,
Pigshit. That people subscribed to other newsgrpoups reply to your
slime from those groups has no bearing on whether it's relevant to
act-b.
> Net Kook.
Quit the projecting, loser.
> In fact you are one of the replies!
Yair. And your attempt to portray that post as a disagreement with
itself is a perfect demonstration of your inability to face reality.
----snip----
> > Oh, get off the moral bandwagon, you hypocrite.
> * That shit just makes for dogmatic disputes.
>
> Morality is always appropriate Ned,
Your Faginite moralising isn't, slimeball.
> even if immoral
> maggots such as you can't understand why.
Quit the projecting, lunatic.
> > There's just one useful criticism of that idiotic
> > proposal those two academic dummies have put forward...
>
> One which you snipped from my post, you derivative tool!
Wrong again, lunatic. I snipped your ranting. That it included a section
which justified the one useful criticism of torture is immaterial: you
buried it in your hypocrisy, and you did not give that reason.
> > > the military do not highly regard intel obtained
> > > under torture.
OH? So you're backing away from your screeching about "torture"
in Abu Ghraib?
When the cattle prod is inserted people will
> > > admit to being Beelzebub and riding the goat on All Saints Eve.
> > >
> > > The interrogation of 'witches' in the Inquisition is a classic;
> > > given the hot lead enema, women confessed to sexual congress
> > > with cloven hooved beasts..
>
> Now watch the Net Kook, having snipped my idea,
"Your" idea, you lying maggot?
"People died under their torture, and people made insincere confessions
under their torture. Their tortures were bad enough to convince people
to say things that they knew would get them burnt at the stake."
-- <94803293...@draal.apex.net.au>, 2000/01/17.
> present it as his own original,
Pffft. I've been saying things like that for *years*, lunatic.
"The Church *still* has not repudiated it. The point is, they never will.
Its only problem, in their eyes, is that confessions made under torture
are not necessarily sincere."
-- <slrna06osi....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>, 2001/11/27.
> all the while accompanied by his hysterical and hypocritical
> jealous screeching
You're imitating me again, lunatic.
> at teh success of my threads.
LOL. A full garbage bin isn't a measure of success, lunatic.
> > Torture doesn't work.
> >
> > The Catholics' Inquisition found that out centuries ago. That's why they
> > gave it up (that's right, Virginia: it wasn't for compassionate reasons).
>
> Imitation, the sincerest form of flattery,
Your "flattery" is of no moment or value.
I repeat: torture doesn't work.
Full stop.
For all that some of what you said implied it, you didn't make that
very telling point clear.
There is no other useful criticism of it. Your moralising and posturing
are worse than useless, because some of those they offend might otherwise
agree with you.
----fuckwit rant snipped----
The message you followed up wasn't posted into act-b, troll.
So why did you post it into act-b, troll?
Oh, that's right, you're a troll.
Piss off, you depraved, hypocritical, racist troll.
fasgnadh
An argument that fails the test of civilised society
- The Age 19/5/2005
"Torture is wrong and must stay outlawed if civil decency is to prevail.
The test of any civilised society is the respect that society shows for
the wellbeing of individual citizens. Over long centuries we have
struggled to establish the rule of law, due process under the law, a set
of rules which, as far as is humanly possible, guarantees fairness and
justice.
Centuries ago, British courts began to outlaw evidence taken under
torture. Through last century, most democratic countries passed laws
banning torture. The United Nations passed conventions, which many have
subscribed to, outlawing any form of torture. There are practical and
ethical reasons for this."
Chief among them, even more important than the unreliability
of information extracted by torture, is what the advocacy of
'justified' torture leads to.. widespread and indiscriminate
torture.
It is inconceivable that if the West argues that it's torture is
good, then it will find other nations and groups making the same
argument, and then our soldiers and citizens will be more likely
to be tortured.
And that is precisely what the Coalition of the Warmongers have
done, in Iraq, with the international transfer of detainees
to countries where torture is carried out, and the use of
information obtained by torture, and the blatant use of
torture to supress democratic dissidents in USSA supported
tyrannies such as Uzbekistan.
"The professor of law at Deakin University who argues for the right to
torture, and indeed for its moral necessity in certain circumstances,
fails to recognise the real world. He suggests that if you knew a person
had evidence pointing to a terrorist incident that would enable you to
stop it, then it would be right, morally defensible and necessary to
torture that person. However, he asks the wrong questions."
"It is not possible to know what a person knows with that kind of
certainty. The professor's "beneficial effects" from torture could never
be guaranteed. There could never be certainty that the wrong person is
not being tortured or indeed that the rationale for torture has not been
created simply to permit its exercise. The person being tortured, if he
thought he had a chance of surviving, would say what he could to stop
the torture."
Precisely the point I made previously; the person claiming
knowledge by hearsay may be lying, mentally ill, or simply
misheard... as may the person he overheard.
"As the Torture Papers recently published by the New York University
Centre on Law and Security reveal, some senior members of the FBI and
the CIA believe that torture is the most inefficient and misguided way
of gaining evidence. Notably, it is soldiers or ex-soldiers who seem to
question or argue against torture, not insignificantly on the grounds
that it would put American soldiers at risk."
And yet USSA government officials as senior as Rumsfeld have
openly declared thay have torn up the Geneva Convention,
and his attack dog commander from Gitmo was transferred to
TexIraq to try and loosen the tongues of an unco-operative
Iraqi population, shiortly before the Abu Ghraib scandal and
the USSA Army report that abuse was 'systemic'
"The unreliability of torture - and its often quite misleading
consequence, with further damage to individual citizens - is a practical
condemnation of the practice. That is not the main argument, however.
Respect for other people, respect for rights that unfortunately in
today's world are too often abused or set aside, is the hallmark of a
decent society. There is a golden rule: "what you do not wish to be done
to yourself, do not do to others".
The moral argument against torture is overwhelming. The fact that
today's bans and prohibitions are too much honoured in the breach is not
an argument to legalise any aspect or purpose of torture. It is an
argument to apply the ban more fiercely, to let the outrage of ordinary
people condemn those that practise it or preach it.
Professor Mirko Bagaric has a muddled view of the real world. Torture is
equated with the right to self-defence. We therefore have a right to
torture. The absurdity of that proposition is self-evident.
Professor Bagaric quite inaccurately compares the right to life of an
aggressor with the absolute desirability of saving the life of a
hostage. He describes a situation in which a hostage-taker is pointing a
gun at a person's head, threatening to shoot him. If the police can get
a "clear shot", the hostage-taker would be shot. That, he claims, is a
greater but acceptable violation of that person's rights than the
violation that leads to the torture of a person and the ultimate freedom
of the hostage. The comparisons, unfortunately, are odious.
If somebody had a knife at the professor's throat, that would be known
and there would be no doubt about it. If a person is tortured to procure
evidence, there will inevitably be all the doubts in the world. Is it
the right person? What does he know, if he knows anything at all? The
analogy is no analogy. The professor has created his own straw argument.
Professor Bagaric also suggests that permissible torture in certain
circumstances will lead to a better society than one that seeks to
outlaw torture absolutely. There is no reason or logic in that
suggestion. There will probably always be ills in a society. One test is
in the objectives that that society sets for itself and in its efforts
to reach those objectives. One of those current objectives is the
outlawing of all torture.
We are judged on the objective and on our efforts to achieve it, not on
a state of perfection. To compare that situation with one in which
society permits some torture represents a further perversion of
morality. For the professor, the end justifies the means. For most of
us, that is abhorrent and to be condemned.
Society will be judged by its respect for all people, by the rules we
set and by which we seek to live. The strongest argument of all against
torture is our knowledge that it is wrong and must be outlawed if a
decent civil society is to prevail.
For centuries people have argued and struggled to condemn torture, to
establish court procedures that do not admit evidence taken under
torture. How can a professor of law, whom I am advised also teaches
human rights, argue to the contrary? For that matter, how can law
officers in the United States Justice Department argue that intrusive
interrogation was permissible as long as it did not lead to organ
failure or death?
Recently we have seen at least one Australian citizen illegally
deported. We have seen the probability that Australian citizens have
been tortured by a foreign power. We have seen the Government endorse a
totally inadequate trial process, which has been condemned by the
highest law officers in britain and by United States federal courts. We
need to ask ourselves when the basic decency of the great majority of
Australians will be stirred to outrage at these violations of basic
human standards."
- Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.
fasgnadh wrote:
>
> "Make torture legal"
> - The Age 17/5/2005
>
> "Torture should be legalised and is
> a "morally defensible" interrogation method,
> even if it causes the death of innocent people,
> according to an article by two Victorian academics
> that has sparked outrage here and overseas."
>
> that the military do not highly regard intel obtained
> under torture. When the cattle prod is inserted people
> will admit to being Beelzebub and riding the goat on All Saints Eve.
>
> The interrogation of 'witches' in the Inquisition is a classic;
> given the hot lead enema, women confessed to sexual congress
> with cloven hooved beasts..
>
Ned Latham
>
> An argument that fails the test of civilised society
> - The Age 19/5/2005
>
> "Torture is wrong and must stay outlawed if civil decency is to prevail.
>
> The test of any civilised society is the respect that society shows for
> the wellbeing of individual citizens.
Wrong. That's *a* test of a *humane* society.
Got fuck all to do with civilization, which includes, among others,
the Aztecs and the Assyrians.
> Over long centuries we have
> struggled to establish the rule of law,
Wrong. That was established millennia ago.
> due process under the law,
> a set of rules which, as far as is humanly possible, guarantees
> fairness and justice.
We still don't have those.
> Centuries ago, British courts began to outlaw evidence taken under
> torture.
Pffft. The Athenians outlawed it about 2500 years ago, lunatic.
(Corss... that didn't apply to slaves. Just goes to show that merely
outlawing something doesn't stop it, and doesn't demonstrate good
reasoning. But then, you and good reasoning? LOL)
> Through last century, most democratic countries passed laws
> banning torture.
Wrong. There were no democracies anywhere in the world then.
> The United Nations passed conventions, which many have
> subscribed to, outlawing any form of torture. There are practical and
> ethical reasons for this."
>
> Chief among them, even more important than the unreliability
> of information extracted by torture,
Idiot. There is *no* more important consideration than its unreliability.
> is what the advocacy of
> 'justified' torture leads to.. widespread and indiscriminate
> torture.
Worthless propaganda. The advocacy of *anything* is likely to lead
to its widespread, and even "indiscriminate", use. That's not a
reason for criticising it.
> It is inconceivable that if the West argues that it's torture is
> good, then it will find other nations and groups making the same
> argument, and then our soldiers and citizens will be more likely
> to be tortured.
Wrong. It's not only conceivable, it's virtually inevitable.
----snip----
> "As the Torture Papers recently published by the New York University
> Centre on Law and Security reveal, some senior members of the FBI and
> the CIA believe that torture is the most inefficient and misguided way
> of gaining evidence.
LOL. And you'd think that if anyone would know, they and the Catholic
Church would be the ones.
----snip----
> "The unreliability of torture - and its often quite misleading
> consequence, with further damage to individual citizens - is a practical
> condemnation of the practice. That is not the main argument, however.
Fuckin' bullshit. That's the *only* argument (worth considering).
Posturing over morality and ethics leads only to dogmatic dispute.
There is *no* disputing the fact that torture doesn't work.
----snip----
> - Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.
He's a posturing fascist: as PM, he slandered Australia by calling
the unemployed "dole bludgers", introducing that term into the
political lexicon at a time when there were twenty unemployed
people for every job vacancy the country could muster. He's a
traitor: in order to become PM, he conspired with Kerr and with
foreign powers to oust the legitimate government of Australia and
in order to further himself, he stabbed his leader, John Gorton,
in the back, knowing that McMahon wouldn't last.
His present posturing is odious. And so is your lickspittle pretence
that he's a "great humatiarian".
But then, you're an establishment flunky: what else is to be expected
from you?
----snip----
Zapkvr
Addinall
Lucas, Peter wrote:
> "Addinall" <addi...@addinall.org> who is a closet loony wrote in
> news:1116466088.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> >
> > Picked up a bottle of 71 HOG.
>
>
> Who'd you have to kill to get that??!!
We don't kill 'em here at Deakin, just hang 'em upside
down for a bit ;-)
> Seeing as the '82 is at optimum drinking in 2007, it might be a 'now'
buy
> :-)
>
>
>
> > I'll be back in QLD
> > next weekend (but only for a weekend).
>
>
> See if we can't meet up somewhere.
> I might be over that way then.
Righto!
>
>
> > Love to the missus.
>
> Will do.
>
>
> > I meet the rat lady this weekend.
>
>
> Give her a smooch for me :-)
WILCO. Went to the piccies!
> And tell her I've forgiven her for killing my namesake ;-)
Mine got the knife as well ;-)
Mark.
Peter
wrote:
>We don't kill 'em here at Deakin, just hang 'em upside
>down for a bit ;-)
>
Does that mean that Deakin graduate students have to defend their PhD
dissertations hanging upside down?
Lucas, Peter
>>
>>
>> See if we can't meet up somewhere.
>> I might be over that way then.
>
> Righto!
Try the landline number first when you get in, if there's no answer, try
the mobile.
I might be here, I might be there :-)
>
>> And tell her I've forgiven her for killing my namesake ;-)
>
> Mine got the knife as well ;-)
You think she's trying to tell us something?? ;-P
fritz
Can you two please learn how to send an 'email' instead of
clogging up the newsgroups with your personal drivel ?
Lucas, Peter wrote ...
Lucas, Peter
$02$2...@news.t-online.com:
>
> Can you two please learn how to send an 'email' instead of
> clogging up the newsgroups with your personal drivel ?
>
Bite me, dough boy.
Fester
> "fritz" <fr...@address.com> who is a closet loony wrote in news:d6toar$akt
> $02$2...@news.t-online.com:
>
>
>>Can you two please learn how to send an 'email' instead of
>>clogging up the newsgroups with your personal drivel ?
>>
>
>
>
> Bite me, dough boy.
>
Lucas, Peter
news:4292b...@x-privat.org:
ROFL!!
I'm in a good mood, what can I say??!!
John Smith, AK
Lionel Theunissen
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4k3m81lakgtj59cde...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:12:10 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
> >able to legally torture an innocent person to
> >death if they had evidence the person knew
> >about a major public threat, such as the
> >September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric
> >replied: "Yes, you could."
>
> > Clearly this man represents an imminent threat.
>
> justified. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people would
> agree with him. In any case, I notice that you avoided answering this
> question. Now let me ask you point blank. Would you sacrifice 3000
> innocent people to uphold your lofty principles? Yes or no?
You can come up with as many hypothetical moral dilemnas as you like. The
only possible ethical answer here is no.
The problem with small minded people like you is that you only ever think
one move ahead. Violating such basic axioms of human rights ALWAYS places us
in more danger in the long term, not less. Once you start taking steps in
the direction of justifying violations of personal freedoms, no matter how
reasonable they may seem, you will find you are on a one-way road that leads
to Auschwitz.
The point is that a country that has abandoned such rights is far more
likely to find itself in the 'ticking bomb' situation in the first place.
The real tragedy of September 11 is that the U.S.A. is still not brave or
intelligent enough to have had the self-realisation that its foreign
policies created and nurtured the terrorists that attacked it.
As a result we have the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of
thousands have died needlessly as a result, and the world is more in danger
of terrorism than ever.
> Here's an even easier question. If you could go back in time and
> strangle baby Adolf, future murderer and torturer of millions, in his
> crib, would you?
This is hardly an easier question. It is far, far, more complicated. Again
the only ethical answer is no.
Why? Because if you could alter history there is no way of predicting the
end result. Even a tiny alteration would have flow on effects that could
cause a massive change in future history, which might be for the better, but
could just as easily be much, much, for the worse.
In any case Hitler did not personally murder millions. He did authorise it,
but chances are if it were not him someone else would have.
With history as we know it now, WWII and the holocaust were terrible
tragedies, but ultimately the Nazis were defeated and Europe has stabilised.
The most important thing is we KNOW the outcome.
However, let's suppose, hypothetically, that we could go back in time and
kill off Hitler. Let's also assume that another person then becomes head of
the Nazi party. One who is more patient and inclined to listen to his
military advisors. The Nazi party still manages to work it's way into
government, but Poland is not invaded in 1939 and the purge of Jews from
Germany in the 1930's doesn't happen. Many of the Jewish physicists who
contributed to the Manhattan Project remain in Germany.
By 1945 Germany has built the first nuclear reactor, and German physicists
have perfected the gas centrifuge enabling them to make bomb grade uranium
to order. A group of engineers led by Werner Von Braun has developed a
missile capable of hitting cities within a 500 km range. Germany is then the
only country in the world with a nuclear capability and the means to deliver
it.
The Nazi party then decides the time is ripe for them to take Europe and the
purge of Jews and other undesirables begins. The German goverment sends
troops into Poland who refuse to submit, and to set an example Warsaw is
nuked...
...and so on.
Get it yet?
Lionel...