On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:43:57 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

This is called a "ticking bomb" concept. The question is, if there is a
ticking bomb set to explode, and you know it is out there but now
where exactly, and you caught a terrorist who would not talk, would
you torture him?

That situation has never practically been replicated.

So this argument is used by Rush Limbaugh, "neocons" and other
assorted liars to justify torturing people in other
circumstances. This particular terrorist mentioned in WP article is a
good example. He was not aware of a ticking bomb. At the worst, he
wanted to be on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. By the time he
was captured, he was not aware of any ticking bombs, and yet was
tortured anyway.

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

I take full moral responsibility for my opinions.

i

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)