[Wheatfield]

Canada 'does not condone torture,' Toews says | CTV Calgary
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Canada "does not condone torture," but the government expects its spy agencies to make protecting Canadian lives their "overriding priority."
Toews was responding to Opposition questions in the House of Commons Tuesday about a Canadian Press report that contains details of a 2010 government directive to CSIS. The directive, written by Toews, instructs the agency to use information that may have been extracted through torture when public safety is at stake.

How can Canada not condone torture when we are willing to use information garnered from torture? The Harper government is acting completely at odds with Canadian values regarding human rights.
I ask any Canadian with any sense of social conscience to protest this move by our government that puts us on the same level as the dictatorships that we despise.

[grhazelton]

Welcome to the Club, My Brother.

[stevewig]

How can Canada not condone torture when we are willing to use information garnered from torture? The Harper government is acting completely at odds with Canadian values regarding human rights.
I ask any Canadian with any sense of social conscience to protest this move by our government that puts us on the same level as the dictatorships that we despise.

Whereas I agree with the general premise here I cannot answer this question:

What would you do if the torture process uncovered a plot to blow up a children's school (symbolic point!!) - would you not use the information?

[reeftool]

Whereas I agree with the general premise here I cannot answer this question:

What would you do if the torture process uncovered a plot to blow up a children's school (symbolic point!!) - would you not use the information?

And this always becomes the arguement to justify torture in the end. We got vital information that saved lives. Really?
Waterboarding isn't torture because my govt. says so.

[stevewig]

And this always becomes the arguement to justify torture in the end. We got vital information that saved lives. Really?
Waterboarding isn't torture because my govt. says so.

I agree with your point - absolutely!!

But you didn't answer my question..........

What do you do when unavoidably, despite your morality, you are placed in the position of having in your possession this type of vital information?

True, you can throw it away and pretend it doesn't exist but is that the moral or right thing to do?

[Wheatfield]

Whereas I agree with the general premise here I cannot answer this question:

What would you do if the torture process uncovered a plot to blow up a children's school (symbolic point!!) - would you not use the information?

This is one of those dishonest questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety, and is hence, impossible to answer honestly. The best answer possible is that the information gotten by the torture cannot be used to accurately predict anything since torture does not give up reliable information.

Here, I'll fire an equally dishonest question back at you: If, through torture, it was discovered that you and your family were part of a terrorist cell intent on blowing up a school, would you want that information acted on, knowing that it would lead to your permanent incarceration and probable execution.

People in the west are using that scenario to justify torture. The problem is, torture does not give reliable information. Hence the premise of the scenario is dishonest and not valid. It's a liars game, and the liars keep asking it because they can call bullsh1t if you say no, and I told you so if you say yes.

[JinDesu]

I agree with your point - absolutely!!

But you didn't answer my question..........

What do you do when unavoidably, despite your morality, you are placed in the position of having in your possession this type of vital information?

True, you can throw it away and pretend it doesn't exist but is that the moral or right thing to do?

If I had the information, I would use it. But that is because you are saying that this is truly vital and accurate.

The crux of the issue with torture is that it cannot be determined if the information acquired from torture is accurate.

[stevewig]

This is one of those dishonest questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety, and is hence, impossible to answer honestly. The best answer possible is that the information gotten by the torture cannot be used to accurately predict anything since torture does not give up reliable information.

Here, I'll fire an equally dishonest question back at you: If, through torture, it was discovered that you and your family were part of a terrorist cell intent on blowing up a school, would you want that information acted on, knowing that it would lead to your permanent incarceration and probable execution.

People in the west are using that scenario to justify torture. The problem is, torture does not give reliable information. Hence the premise of the scenario is dishonest and not valid. It's a liars game, and the liars keep asking it because they can call bullsh1t if you say no, and I told you so if you say yes.

My basic opinion is no compromise on the illegality and moral corruption caused by the use of torture - period and no exceptions!

However, I am more cautious than yourself regarding the value of the information that was illegally obtained through the use of torture.

If lives can be saved then they should be!

I hesitate to talk in the abstract about specific cases that neither you nor I am aware of.

I am certain of one thing only, trained intelligence experts are far more capable than I of ascertaining what tortured information may or may not be credible.

[Docrwm]

This is one of those dishonest questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety, and is hence, impossible to answer honestly. The best answer possible is that the information gotten by the torture cannot be used to accurately predict anything since torture does not give up reliable information.

Here, I'll fire an equally dishonest question back at you: If, through torture, it was discovered that you and your family were part of a terrorist cell intent on blowing up a school, would you want that information acted on, knowing that it would lead to your permanent incarceration and probable execution.

People in the west are using that scenario to justify torture. The problem is, torture does not give reliable information. Hence the premise of the scenario is dishonest and not valid. It's a liars game, and the liars keep asking it because they can call bullsh1t if you say no, and I told you so if you say yes.

Nope, its not dishonest because such things actually happen. Real world, it's messy.

[Wheatfield]

My basic opinion is no compromise on the illegality and moral corruption caused by the use of torture - period and no exceptions!

However, I am more cautious than yourself regarding the value of the information that was illegally obtained through the use of torture.

If lives can be saved then they should be!

I hesitate to talk in the abstract about specific cases that neither you nor I am aware of.

I am certain of one thing only, trained intelligence experts are far more capable than I of ascertaining what tortured information may or may not be credible.

Well, it's pretty much proven that information gotten via torture is not reliable, certainly not enough to be acted on, and the act of doing it does lower us to a much lower level than the bad guys.
Generally, the person being tortured will give up what he thinks his inquisitors want to hear to make the torment end. This isn't necessarily the truth.
At least the bad guys don't pretend to be good guys.
The point is, we shouldn't be having this discussion at all. We like to think we are more civilized than our enemies who use torture, and yet we seem willing to condone the use of torture.
In the case of Canada, the very same government that is now condoning torture paid a 10 million dollar apology to Mahar Arar, a Canadian citizen who was exported by the Americans to Syria where he was tortured. The payout was for the suffering he endured.
This is pretty hypocritical.

While we are at it, why don't we open up the medical records from the Nazi camps. Apparently they made some tremendous strides in medical research during WWII. If course, the victims of their experiments rarely survived, and died very painfully, but hey, if there is something to be learned, why not?

Anyway, if we use these sorts of methods, we cannot hold the other side criminally responsible when they torture our citizens, we can only hold them to the same level of integrity that we show.

BTW, did you answer my question?

[reeftool]

I agree with your point - absolutely!!

But you didn't answer my question..........

What do you do when unavoidably, despite your morality, you are placed in the position of having in your possession this type of vital information?

True, you can throw it away and pretend it doesn't exist but is that the moral or right thing to do?

In the American legal system, information received this way is inadmissable as evidence in court. My point was that often, certain methods become "approved" to justify their use. The question as to what is done with information obtained improperly is a difficult one. Maybe a law enforcement member could speak up on this one. Do you follow up, knowing that the courts will dismiss the charges? I think this was answered by the Bush administration when they locked up terrorist suspects at Guantanamo and never brought charges. This issue is still being fought in the courts.

[stevewig]

..........
BTW, did you answer my question?

Here, I'll fire an equally dishonest question back at you: If, through torture, it was discovered that you and your family were part of a terrorist cell intent on blowing up a school, would you want that information acted on, knowing that it would lead to your permanent incarceration and probable execution.

If this was the question you are referring to - yes I believe I did by inference, but I'll be more clear:

If I was ever in that unlikely situation I would very definitely expect that information to be acted on, I would run away as far and fast as I could and I would consider my enemy as fools if they did not act upon it. If I was caught before I could run I would expect summary execution because "I tried to escape".

However that answer does nothing to deal with the subject at hand and is therefor irrelevant to this issue.

[stevewig]

In the American legal system, information received this way is inadmissable as evidence in court. My point was that often, certain methods become "approved" to justify their use. The question as to what is done with information obtained improperly is a difficult one. Maybe a law enforcement member could speak up on this one. Do you follow up, knowing that the courts will dismiss the charges? I think this was answered by the Bush administration when they locked up terrorist suspects at Guantanamo and never brought charges. This issue is still being fought in the courts.

A good attempt at answering the question and I respect your answer but we are here talking about what is the right\moral thing to do and not necessarily what the current laws permit.

Otherwise we have nothing to talk about - just give it to the lawyers to digest. Let them take care of it!

For our discussion let us stay with what is the correct and moral thing to do with this information and then we will give THAT to the lawyers to couch in legal terms!

[eddie1960]

How can Canada not condone torture when we are willing to use information garnered from torture? The Harper government is acting completely at odds with Canadian values regarding human rights.
I ask any Canadian with any sense of social conscience to protest this move by our government that puts us on the same level as the dictatorships that we despise.

Hey I've been protesting Harper and his buddies for years....welcome to the club.
See you at the Leadership convention at the Metro convention center march 23rd will I>

[eddie1960]

Well, it's pretty much proven that information gotten via torture is not reliable, certainly not enough to be acted on, and the act of doing it does lower us to a much lower level than the bad guys.
Generally, the person being tortured will give up what he thinks his inquisitors want to hear to make the torment end. This isn't necessarily the truth.

Exactly, and misinformation actually is in the bad guys interest since the good guys then spend time and money chasing a phantom

At least the bad guys don't pretend to be good guys.
The point is, we shouldn't be having this discussion at all. We like to think we are more civilized than our enemies who use torture, and yet we seem willing to condone the use of torture.

Certainly our governments (US Canada France GB at least) seem to be willing benefactors of it even if the populace is abhorred by it

In the case of Canada, the very same government that is now condoning torture paid a 10 million dollar apology to Mahar Arar, a Canadian citizen who was exported by the Americans to Syria where he was tortured. The payout was for the suffering he endured.
This is pretty hypocritical..

Agreed but Hypocrisy from this bunch is no big surprise to me. Personally i don't like the direction they have been moving the country in and will continue to vote against them and campaign to be rid of them ( says the guy with an enormous ndp sign on his front yard right now - I live in the riding that was Jack Layton's)

the most reliable information has always been from deep cover agents withing a target enemy but the terrorist model precludes these being effective thanks to compartmentalization. Add in western governments have done a poor job of recruiting from ethnic communities anyway .Torture still gets crap info, Screw with somebodies mental state enough and they will say anything to make you stop. if you don't believe them and keep going they may say something different. how do you even determine which statement had a grain of truth. meantime you are no better than the bad guy