[Angus]

I would pretend and tell him that some bombs had been planted in his home and then lock him and his family in the house, chained to the radiators, with an armed guard all round the perimeter.

Or

If his wife is innocent she should be prepared to cooperate with saving lives. She could pretend to be tortured on film which is played back to the bomber. If he's not prepared to save her life, then they should torture the hell out of him.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Angus

I would pretend and tell him that some bombs had been planted in his home and then lock him and his family in the house, chained to the radiators, with an armed guard all round the perimeter.

Or

If his wife is innocent she should be prepared to cooperate with saving lives. She could pretend to be tortured on film which is played back to the bomber. If he's not prepared to save her life, then they should torture the hell out of him.

Ah, that's good Angus. best answer of the thread imo

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Ah, that's good Angus. best answer of the thread imo

Time constraints? There was no time to do anything in the OP, now we can set up a whole different scenario. If we had that much time, then torture is not necessary.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Time constraints? There was no time to do anything in the OP, now we can set up a whole different scenario. If we had that much time, then torture is not necessary.

You need time to torture someone as well, so I can't see how you would have time to actually torture his wife but not enough time to pretend to torture her

[Vicky.]

I would torture one person to possibly save the lives of hundreds. No question about it.

[lily.]

This one is a true moral dilemma, because the knee-jerk reaction is to knock him about a bit til he tells you what you need to know..

But, then you go away and think about it and realise that you don't agree with torture..

I'm sticking with my original answer, but now I'm positive that I'd feel terrible about it afterwards. :/

Originally Posted by Niamh.

You need time to torture someone as well, so I can't see how you would have time to actually torture his wife but not enough time to pretend to torture her

I don't think anyone should be tortured. The bombers wife or the bomber himself. I just don't know where all this time has come from all of a sudden.

[nicole_burks]

I don't believe in torture, but if it's saving many peoples lives then go with it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I don't think anyone should be tortured. The bombers wife or the bomber himself. I just don't know where all this time has come from all of a sudden.

I'm just saying if there is enough time to torture the wife, then there should be enough time to pretend to as well

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by lostalex

torture is not drawn out though. There are very clear rules when it comes to torture. Yur saying you'd prefer death "permanent" to torture, where it's only allowed for a few hours at a time?? really?

sorry, it's not the same at all.

I couldn't give a flying **** how long it lasted, I would not want to be tortured. Ever.

The thought of a few hours of emotional and physical torture to me is enough to make me want to end my life right now. I couldn't go through it, not even for a minute. Death is better any day.

[Doogle]

Torture. I'd feel awful but the end result would be a lot better.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I don't think anyone should be tortured. The bombers wife or the bomber himself. I just don't know where all this time has come from all of a sudden.

Well the scenario the OP gives doesn't specify the time factor, so we have to operate on the assumption that we would have sufficient time to make a decision and act on it. Otherwise the whole thread is pointless

[Ramsay]

Get Jack Bauer on their ass

[Jords]

Torture him and make him believe his wife is also being tortured.

[Jordan.]

Torture. He brought it on himself.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Angus

I would pretend and tell him that some bombs had been planted in his home and then lock him and his family in the house, chained to the radiators, with an armed guard all round the perimeter.

Or

If his wife is innocent she should be prepared to cooperate with saving lives. She could pretend to be tortured on film which is played back to the bomber. If he's not prepared to save her life, then they should torture the hell out of him.

so basically you'd be filming the next SAW movie lol

[Bollo]

Torture

[Z]

Emotional blackmail is often a better way to get through to someone who won't cooperate to the point of torture becoming a viable option... so torturing his wife, or threatening to, may well work far better than beating the **** out of him.

[GypsyGoth]

I don't think it's right to torture him.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by lostalex

so basically you'd be filming the next SAW movie lol

Sure, why not make a few quid on the side whilst saving countless lives by tricking a mad bomber?

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Angus

I would pretend and tell him that some bombs had been planted in his home and then lock him and his family in the house, chained to the radiators, with an armed guard all round the perimeter.

Or

If his wife is innocent she should be prepared to cooperate with saving lives. She could pretend to be tortured on film which is played back to the bomber. If he's not prepared to save her life, then they should torture the hell out of him.

I like this answer.

[Visage]

It goes against my beliefs but one man tortured that could save the lives of thousands, I would want to go with the torture scenario.

Only I don't want to be in the room while it's happening.

I like the idea of emotional blackmail, leading the bomber to think his wife was been tortured.