Posted by brat13 (in National News: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States)
One of you admitted what lurked in the depths of your heart.
In that thread, I asked whether anyone wanted to drop this "waterboarding isn't torture" lie, and get to the heart of it: Is it ever acceptable to torture to increase the probability of saving lives?
If so, what torture? How much? How many lives is it to be balanced against? In short...what guiding principles could justify the practice?
The answer I got obviously went a lot farther: If a foreigner kills an American, we should torture the foreigner for the sake of revenge.
Well why keep that distinction. On brat's logic, all murderers should be tortured.
Does anyone else think we should torture murderers?
Or only enemey soldiers?
Or only admitted terrorists?
Does anyone think we should torture suspected terrorists to increase the probability of saving lives - why and what rules?
If you think we should do that, why not torture any suspected criminal to discover future plots and colleagues?
How low can we sink?