Stupid Questions
-
Do you think the DFL is losing sleep over the "torture" that was used to get information that ultimately stopped the terror plot in Britain?
How could anyone refute the necessity of it in that case?
Well... here ya go.
[[ If the allegation that the Pakistanis tortured Rashid Rauf turns out to be true, should we be grateful? Rauf is claimed to be one of the ring-leaders in the alleged plot to blow up at least five passenger jets over the Atlantic.
The information he is reported to have given to the Pakistan police was passed on to the authorities here, and is said to have been critical to the British police raids of 10 days ago. But Asma Jehangir, of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, says "there is simply no doubt… no doubt at all" that Rauf was tortured to persuade him to reveal the information. No torture might have meant no information: and maybe five or more planes brought down. ]]
So, okay... they got the information through "torture." I guess that means it works sometimes, right? In any case, no one would even think of not using such life-saving information, however it was obtained... right?
Well... here ya go.
[[ One of their lordships summed it up succinctly: the Government "cannot be expected to close its eyes to information [obtained by torture] at the price of endangering the lives of its own citizens. Moral repugnance at torture does not require this".
That apparent ambivalence towards torture disturbs moral absolutists, who believe that renouncing such evidence is precisely what moral repugnance at torture does require. They argue that a willingness to use evidence obtained by torture is akin to complicity in it, and that it is better for a terrorist plot to go ahead and cause mass casualties than for it to be prevented by the use of torture. ]]
Anyway, here's the whole story- headlined by the aforementioned stupid question:
If Torture Could Stop A Terrorist Atrocity And Save Thousands Of Lives, Would It Really Be So Wrong?
-
posted by kmg at 08:46
1 Comments:
The Pakstanis have the right idea (thought I'm sure they go "too far" from time-to-time).
Coerced Interogation ("torture", if you prefer) DOES WORK! I'd love to hear someone explain LOGICALLY why it doesn't.
Sleep Deprivation, extreme cold/heat, water-boarding, threat of physical harm (with dogs, e.g.), and even food (serving only pork to Muslims, e.g.) can be very useful to extract valuable LIFE-SAVING intel.
You don't have to cause real/great physical harm to a human-being in order to get the info you need. Psychological/emotional "torture" is a proven & beneficial method to help save lives in war (in this case).
Keep Gitmo open & let's tell the ACLU (and others) to find something better to do...like helping the families of 9/11 victims. They have been tortured WAY WORSE than ANY of these islamo-faschists in U.S. custody.
Post a Comment
<< MAIN PAGE