So; I got one right ehh? I read your post thoroughly and I think I see the moral ambiguity that seperates us. If torture of a human suspect in a wartime situation who is clearly an enemy combatant would provide information that would save lives and prevent mass scale deaths then I would say that the process had some validity. Lets agree that most proffessionals will say that torture doesn't work; because that is what they do say. Lets say that the threat of torture might coerce a suspect into confessing important info. That process as we have been shown would have to be carried out by a knowledgable and well experienced handler. That eliminates the possibility of speedy attainment of the info. So not only will we agree there will be abuses but those abuses will predominate as a result of the conditions required to produce good reliable info. Then we have some limits; should the torture be regulated? Or should the limitations of the torture be death if needed? I know you see where I am goingwith this so let me stop and turn another tack. Regardless of who you think we are fighting in Iraq; what I see is a very diverse group; some of whom are legitimate revolutionaries fighting against an occupying nation. Who will make the determination concerning whether the suspect is a terrorist or a true Iraqi soldier fighting to liberate his country? And is that wrong enough to require us to kill or torture the guy? There's more but I will stop for now and see what the response is.
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
