Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...
Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.
The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.
Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.
The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...
Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.
-spence
|
It didn't say it is fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids . It's what happens when, in some instances Obama approves bombings in Pakastan.
Your right this isn't a black or white thing. Some would consider, as I do, that what the CIA did was harsh interrogation at worse. I don't consider it torture.
Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.
And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me