Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
Doesn't that put the US invasion of Iraq into a different light?
|
I knew this was coming...
No, in my opinion it doesn't change anything.
First of all I don't believe Bush was actually too afraid of Saddam's "mighty wmd arsenal", and I don't either believe that the wmd were the main reason for the attack.
And on the contrary to your example almost none of the world leaders except for Blair shared Bush's faith.
Besides, torturing one man is not quite the same as invading a country.
But I don't want to get into another "what were the real reasons for operation Iraqi Freedom" -argument so enough of that.
Quote:
|
Then I should've been more clear: I took the question to mean "state sanctioned" torture. I disagree with state sanctioned abuse. No nation should allow torture and should have laws that specifically prohibit it. As you agree, we simply cannot make a law that says: "If A and B, then C only if D happens before E, pursuant to F, G, H, and I."
|
Agreed, it would be an impossible task. And it is also almost certain that if a law sanctioning torture would be made, it would be seriously abused. Therefore it's also my opinion that torture shouldn't be lawful. There may be situations where torture could be used, but if it was lawful it would be used in situations that wouldn't require it.
Quote:
|
If I caught one of the kidnappers you can bet that I would torture him until I got the information I was looking for. That's me personally and I would fully expect to go to jail if I were caught.
|
And I would bet that everyone here, even the ones totally condemning torture, would use it in a such situation. So as was mentioned before, this is a complicated issue and it's difficult to take absolute positions with it.