Daily Kos

View Story | 41 comments

  •  When they said they were going to do this, (4.00 / 3)

    it was in the context of 9/11 just having occurred, and most of us presumed that the tactic would only be used against clear terrorists.

    Now we know it has been used much more widely, and even spread to the quite conventional -- not terrorist -- war in Iraq.

    So, it may always have been illegal.  But now the consequences of tolerating this tactic are much clearer.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 07:41:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you (none / 1)

      I think torture falls into the "would you be willing to be executed for it" category.

      My guess is that ordinary torture doesn't work very well at uncovering reliable information. I think that hooked a person to a polygraph and an MRI machine, asking questions and studying the results would probably work a lot better.

      But, if someone thinks torture really is worth it -- i.e., the torturing will produce information that could keep a nuclear bomb from exploding in Times Square -- then s/he should be willing to turn him/herself over for criminal prosecution once the torturing is completed and the emergency has passed.

      If I used to torture to obtain information that saved a city from being nuked, I wouldn't be thrilled about being executed or imprisoned for life because of what I'd done, but I'd agree with the logic of the judges who sentenced me.

      by sclminc on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 11:02:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 41 comments