On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:04:18 -0500, 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.

Ticking time bomb rare?
Not really. It's as common as bigfoot and Martians.
Non-existant.
Now, do you want to give government "authorities" who believe
in bigfoot and Martians the right to torture your kids?
Same deal.
I'll say it again. It is simply amazing that nominal Republicans want
to give Democrat Barack Obama a license to torture - in secret.
But this is what happens when political party hacks start setting
American values, and their followers go along for the ride.

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...

Which all tortured their own citizens, of course.
There are *always* "enemies of the state" within the borders.

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

Worse. Barbarians were up front about cutting off your nuts.
In full light of day.
States sneak into your home in the night, take you to secret torture
chambers, then cut off your nuts.
Keep your family guessing. Part of the terror regime.

--Vic