> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <much snippage> > For a number of reasons, both practical and ethical, > the US needs to > confirm that this will be both policy and law and > that violations of this [no torture, I presume -DH] > law will be treated with the appropriate > punishments... > Finally, having stated this, I'll have to admit that > there may be > circumstances where I'd understand why this rule was > violated. (I always > look for the exceptions to universals, even this > one. :-) ) If the > "ticking bomb" were something like a nuclear device > packed somewhere in > some container waiting customs inspections...then > I'd probably accept "all > means necessary" being used by the government on > people who have a real > chance of providing a lead. In particular, if the > post mortum _did_ show > that these methods were instrumental in stopping, > say, the Port of Houston > from turning into glass, then I'd probably not call > for punishment. One of > the ways to handle this would be the way the Israeli > Supreme Court does: > one cannot justify one's actions in this manner, but > it could be a > mitigating circumstance with respect to any > punishment. > > How about you? If we take away the easy outs (like > a lack of believability > of such a claim or the existence of equally > promising techniques that do > not involve torture), would you make the decision to > stick to principal and > take a high risk of a major seaport turning to > glass? I realize that this > is a hypothetical....and plenty of arguments could > be made that this is not > really a practical question, but I still wonder if > the rule that > democracies should never resort to such actions is > as universal as I'd like it to be.
If torture were used on "people who have a real chance of providing a lead" in a genuine "ticking bomb" circumstance, by those who _know_ both quoted conditions are true, it would meet my 'practical idealism' requirements. I also factor in 'what would *I* be willing to do' in that situation -- is the potential payoff (in terms of saving lives) worth the stain on my soul (or spirit, or heart, for the List's Unsouled ;} )? I am reasonably sure that I am capable of killing or even torture if I was certain (1)that lives would be saved (2)the targeted person was not an innocent (to the best of my knowledge) (3)the conditions in quotes above exist. I am quite sure that I'd vomit to the point of bleeding dry heaves afterward, and have nightmares for a very long time, if not the rest of my life. I don't think that torture can be official gov't policy for reasons you listed -- that slope is just too bloody slippery. I'll go along with the Israeli court outlook you provided, WRT moderating punishment for the law-breakers. The season finale of "24" addressed just exactly that scenario (nuclear device stolen by terrorists, one of whom "Jack" has his hands on -- and tortures). Debbi "Put down the vinegar/ Take up the honey-jar/ You'll catch many more flies!" Maru __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
