re: #391 ausador

Thats easy, if it violates civilized ethics, U.N. anti-torture agreements that we “were” signatories too, and the standard Geneva Convention prohibitions against treatment of prisoners then it is quite obviously too far.

Don’t propose some bullshit never going to happen in a million years scenario like you people always do to support torture where we know the guy is a terrorist, we know he knows where a bomb is or will be, we know that only he has the secret code to disarm it. We know that tens of thousands will die unless he tells us what we know he knows.

The entire proposition is ludicrous bullshit and an obvious fallacy that can only be found in movies and on simple minded T.V. shows for rednecks, (like 24).

Mostly the people we have tortured were sold to us by the Afghans or Pakistanis because they were people who were suspected of involvement, or had a beef with the local warlord, or maybe the local police chief just wanted to seize his house and lands (or daughter). They weren’t “captured on the battlefield” there is no evidence that they did anything to harm the U.S.A. or it’s troops.

Yet torturing them just in case maybe they are guilty of something or might know something is OK? Because that is how torture was used and that is what you are trying to defend, why do you think that we have had to let most of them go? They were guilty of nothing, they had not attacked us, but we tortured them anyway. Yet people seem shocked that some of the people we did let go have turned around and joined the taliban or other Muslim extremist groups?

Revenge is quite a motivator, I can imagine doing the same thing in their shoes, hate begets hate.

Again, for those that cannot read, I’m not defending water-boarding. I’m simply asking how far is too far to save lives.