Bob, How is my statement that torture doesn't work "rather collectivist"? If you meant to say "rather general", that is a rather large blunder for a libertarian forum. If anything is "collectivist", it is the advocacy/usage of torture.
While my statement may be "rather general", I believe it is rather well-backed. Cheney wanting torture docs released and stating that torture works is certainly no evidence that it works. Intelligence "confessed" after torture is no proof that other methods would not have been more successful. In fact, torture is notorious for being the least successful amongst other methods that are more successful. Besides, the torturers' excuse that "it worked" has been relegated as "no defense" by the US since the Nazis tried using it. Since my statement was only a reply to your comment that implied that torture works, it was not off-point and/or irrelevant. Don't blame me for throwing utility in with legality; you did that. ---------------------------- "In case you are thinking torture works, it doesn't." That's a rather collectivist statement, applying a one-size-fits-all result to each individual criminal. I've read analysis from various researchers, and there are varying opinions on that. Personally, I think the results vary by circumstance and individual. The fact that Cheney wants the results released, and the Obama administration refuses, provides a hint that something might have been gained by waterboarding. But we don't really know. But as Bruce said elsewhere, that wasn't the point of this thread. Your claim is relevant to whether torture is worth using, but irrelevant to the legality of it.
