Isnt that the very definition of rationalization? At what point is to far? When does a good man become a monster or country for that matter?
I do what is necessary. If you won't that fine. That's is up to you. If I got my hands on one of the 9-11 hijackers and torturing him would be the only way to save those lives, I would do it. If it was a regular GI Jihad, no way. It all depends on the situation and circumstance. Besides no one knows what they would do in a particular situation until it happens. I seen in my long life too many folks who said I would or I wouldn't do the opposite when it came to the shove. I just wonder how one would feel who stuck by his principle of no torture know that if he had he could have saved lives, but didn't.
A good man becomes a monster when he knowingly and willingly slaughter the innocent for his own personal gain. As for rationalisation, I would prefer the decision to use torture be based on a rational one, rather than emotional, as pointed out earlier in the thread. Obviously the closer you are to the issue and if it's someone important to you, it would be easy to cross ethical lines, (for me anyway). There are other ethical reasons in favour of the argument for using torture, such as preventing soldier deaths by obtaining knowledge you would not otherwise have, in addition to saving innocent lives. For example; Your son is fighting a war and live to see another day because torture was used to prevent him from walking into an ambush, would you rather sacrifice him so you can continue to sit in your ethical ivory tower? For me the answer is easy, I would not. If you choose to wage war by not getting your hands dirty you will lose, the cost for losing a war is usually death, the stakes are too high to not consider using torture if the situation requires it.
I would say okay right wrong despicable morally reprehensible all have no bearing. Whether or not it's necessary it is all that really should matter
Nice but inane retort from someone who won't be bothered to define his assertion Maybe you should check out the Geneva Convention before citing it. As to how to determine -- let's see, maybe by seeing a guy in a military skirmish environment that is trying to kill you and is not wearing a military uniform????
Geneva convention is signed by all parties involved. Terrorists don’t sign anything so they have no quarter. We should be able to do whatever we want to people without a govt and who don’t fight for a worthy symbol. Wanting to covert the world to Islam is not a worthy cause.
You damn sure suggested that. I'm just lurking until that crazy reply. If you support torture then you must support all of it lest your naked hypocrisy really shine through.
I have read the Third Geneva Convention, have you? I'm going to go out on a limb and wager that it'll be a "no", seeing as how you clearly don't even know there are four of the buggers. So, some guy says a person has no rights, and off you go torturing them? That's a really solid legal basis for such a decision, with plenty of evidence to support it. Oh, no, wait; it isn't.
You claim that torture does work, so let's see you do what exactly zero people have even tried to do in this thread so far; prove it.
Good to know, but that isn't what I asked. Would you be prepared to do anything whatsoever to save lives? I'm not asking what you consider to be a proper justification for torture, I'm asking where you draw the line regarding how far you'd go.
I like a good illustratory example as much as the next guy, but now you're just taking the piss. Torture a person or the universe would end? Come on, and I'm the one accused of not sticking to reality?
I don't know. I'm not privy to the information just like you. I'm not aware of any torture taking place at Guantanamo. Your problem is that you assume I support torture. I don't. I disagreed with some of your statements. That doesn't mean I like torture.
Are you saying you are more than willing to let your buddies, soldiers from your unit plus who knows how many civilians die rather than revert to torture if that might saves their lives? Wouldn't their lives weigh on your mind knowing you might have been able to present their deaths? Probably not. You probably didn't give a hoot about others in your unit or the lives of folks you were sworn to defend and protect. Got it.
How far would I go. If torture of one would saves lives of many, yes. But that would be the only case I can think of where I might revert to it. I, myself couldn't stand by without doing everything within my ability to save lives of other soldiers, civilians even if I could. Unlike some, I wouldn't be able to say to heck with it, let them die if I could prevent it. It seems the latter is the boat your in. That's fine, I asked someone else on this thread if knowing you might have been able to prevent the deaths of your buddies in your unit or civilians in your town or someone else's town, Wouldn't that weigh some on your or not?
I agree with this Japanese guy https://www.quora.com/Does-torture-work-2 btw check out how low the Japanese crime rate is and how high crime solve rate is.... there's your proof right there
No. Not sure how you are interpreting that. I would torture viciously to save my buddies, my unit, my county.
Would that it were so. What you're actually advocating is inaction founded on a narcissistic perversion of morality.
On moral grounds torture is wrong, then again so is killing people. But if we are talking about war and all aspects of it then morality sort of takes a back seat. Very few things about war are morally just, but thats how it is. War isn't moral, war isn't immoral, war is just war. Thats not to say there should be no rules or regulations regarding warfare, but it becomes quite difficult to inject "morality" into a war discussion. If torture works and is a viable way to obtain useful information that can save the lives of Americans then I am all for it.