Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob_G
If you allow the torture of a man you know is guilty to save 10 lives, it might be seen as something positive. But the next step will be the torture of a man who is probably guilty. And later you will torture a man who you think knows somebody who knows somebody who has information about something. What I'm trying to say is this: If you allow torture for one thing, anything, boundaries get blurry, and torture becomes an acceptable interrogation method or even a punishment. If you want to live in a civilized society you can never allow torture. Ever!
|
You seem to be arguing "slippery slope," but to oppose torture in the hypothetical that I described because eventually we would use torture in much less "understandable" circumstances is akin to banning baseball because once people get used to hitting baseballs with a bat, they will eventually use the bats to hit people.
I have never been in the military, but if I could get some information that would save three lives by assaulting a prisoner, I would do it in a moment. And, if that makes me less enlightened, I can live with that.
__________________
If I'd lived in Roman times, I'd have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself. - John Lennon
April 15th, Make it just another day!
The best daily political cartoons can be found here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html