On May 13, 6:04*am, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people *- the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. *This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. *When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. *That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany... *

To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. *We're ****in' barbarians.

I can't see it as going that far. To me that's like classifying ALL
U.S.detention centers as gulags. Those people were barbaric enough to
butcher people alive.

Odd, that we have used "A" water boarding technique, with privacy and
with doctors standing by with lifesaving equipment to be used if
necessary.

Back then they "waterbourded" with other detainees watching and if the
person didn't sing like a canary, he just plain drowned, then they'd
grab another and "next!" Somebody eventually spilled the beans.