Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Avro's example may be fiction but it raises a valid point: Are there no conceivable circumstances that could justify the use of torture?
I do not condone torture and agree it is largely self defeating. But neither am I, or indeed, is anyone else here, privvy to what is really going on in the war against terrorism and how various successful operations have been generated by intelligence gathered by such methods.
It is a moral dilemma that does not bother the enemy in the slightest. They view our compassion as weakness and use our laws and morals against us.
And we must allow them to do so or we become as bad they are. Or do we?
Avro uses an example similar to one I have used in this argument with other people: A terrorist cell gains possession of a nuclear device and plants it in a American city. They set in to go off within 48hrs. They confirm this in a video but obviously do not say which city. One of the cell is caught. Do you:
a/ Use torture in an attempt to get him to reveal the location of the device within a time frame to allow its safe deactivation?
or
b/ Allow him full human rights and judicial process and thus allow millions to die but maintaining your sense of morality?
It is actually derived from the storyline of a film starring Samuel L Jackson called "Unthinkable". It deals with this very question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Wzg8&feature=related
I do not know the answer, but then that's the dilemma is it not?