Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
I'm no international law or international human rights expert, but I'm not sure it's even as simple as you guys are making it. The US has been using torture for some time (KUBARK and the "Phoenix Program" are the first instances that comes to mind, although both were pre-Convention Against Torture).
I'm not saying I'm for torture...but, to be perfectly honest, I can understand the arguments for it in certain circumstances, and I know a few reasonably intelligent people (i.e. people who aren't idiots) who feel the same way.
At the end of the day, I don't know. I've never been in the military, never had to extract information from someone, and have never had to make these choices of whether or not to use these tactics. I do, however, suspect that one of the reasons we'll never see anyone from the Bush administration put on trial is because this administration, and future administrations, would endorse some methodology that could qualify as torture.
|
i think it should be a last resort. but an option nonetheless. the moral high ground is easy to be on when everyone is playing by the same rules. but they're not playing by the same rules. in this instance, the end DOES justify the means.
a "enemy of the US" whether a country or not will torture and do anything to our people and that doesn't hinge on whether or not we torture.
Threaded Mode
