Are you going to stake out the ground that it isn't true? Are you seriously claiming that liberty and justice are important to people who are already dead?
No, that isn't what I'm claiming and that isn't what I was responding to. You said that being alive is higher priority than liberty and justice. I'm claiming that is not historically true at all.
You are correct that liberty and justice are not important to dead people, but
nothing is important to dead people.
Okay, the first time, I said you were missing the distinction. This sounds like you're deliberately trying to distort what I said. Please don't go Clausian on me. You know I'm talking about someone who we have good reason to believe is complicit in an attempt at mass murder that is about to come off. Don't try to twist what I said into framing it as condoning the torture your grandma.
Well, grandma torturing is going a bit further than what I meant.
What I'm talking about is the discarding of principles. The principle in question in this bit of exchange was the presumption of innocence. Your response about there being a distinction between getting a confession for a past crime and trying to prevent a crime is irrelevant to the abandonment of that presumption of innocence. It is irrelevant because in both cases, you are torturing someone you are assuming is guilty.
Then what was your point in bringing it up?
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that what I said is incorrect. I'm saying that your framing of the issues is incorrect or, at least, over simplified.
No, the justification is that it is the only way to stop a mass murder. It's a last resort.
You are, of course, assuming that your subject is going to participate or has participated in a plot of mass murder.
That aside, that is a very murky ethical and probably legal position you have there.
It isn't like your subject is in a bell tower with his finger on the trigger of a rifle. In your "24" scenario, you have someone who is no longer an active participant in the plot. The best you can hope for is information that was good up until the moment your subject was caught. The "eminent threat" from that person is gone.
How do you determine that you are out of options?
I don't understand your reasoning here, but since the premise it's based on is erroneous...
Okay, let me put it this way: Would you condone the use of torture on someone you weren't sure was guilty of whatever it is you are trying to prevent?
If no, then you are only condoning torture because you are somehow
sure the subject is guilty, despite the lack of a trial proving it. You are presuming his guilt in lou of the legal determination of it.
If yes ...well, if you condone torture on someone you weren't sure was guilty, I have to question your grotesque double standard on the protection of innocents.
No, it presumes knowledge. Guilt is for a court to decide. But you don't need to establish that a suspect is guilty before you start interrogating him. In fact, guilt is never established before interrogation.
At that point, a person is referred to as a suspect. Please tell me that you are not suggesting that it is okay to torture someone you merely suspect is involved with something horrendous that has not yet happened.
That is essentially correct. I don't believe I've ever argued that torture should be the first method of interrogation. Though you could get to it quickly if you know time is short and it's obvious you have a stubborn case on your hands.
It amazes me that you think you would have all this information (when the "mass murder" will take place, that your suspect knows something critical, etc.) and so few other options.
Just so we're perfectly clear here, you do understand that "24" is poorly written and unrealistic fiction, right?
Sure, there might well be others. Should we hold off interrogating the guy we have and allow that bomb to keep ticking while we round them up?
You misunderstand. You're assuming this person actually has the information you need.
Well, yeah. You're not torturing him just for the fun of it, no matter what the vile and repugnant Randi Rhodes may claim. And you're not torturing your grandma just because she happened to be walking by the police station and was easy to bring in.
You misunderstand again. You are assuming that the torture won't corrupt the information. A torture victim is likely to say
anything to stop the torture. Even if the person knows the information you are looking for, how do you know when you have it? How do you discern between the true stuff from the desperate gibberish?
As you claim in your scenario, time is short. I'm assuming you think there is only one chance to get it right. Does your scenario allow you time to sift through it all and try to verify any of it or do you have act with Jack Bauer-like certainty relying on the fact that the good guys always save the day in the nick of time?
For the record, I agree, the situation should be highly unlikely - only when lives are at stake, time is of the essence, and there is no other reasonable way to get the information. Torture should absolutely be a last resort. But it shouldn't be off the table entirely.
Do you think we have been in this highly unlikely situation? Do you condone the torture that has already taken place and, if so, for what reason?
Yes, we should be willing to fight for our principles. We should be willing to die for our principles.
But we shouldn't have to die because of our principles.
Excellent point.
However, do you realize that if you say we should be willing to fight and die for our principles that the actions you are condoning in this thread are the very things you saying that we should be willing to fight against?
Okay, that's a good run on sentence. Let me try again.
You are saying that we should be willing to fight and die for our principles. But the very thing you are advocating is against our principles. Therefore, we should be willing to fight against and die to prevent the very thing you are advocating.
Some of us actually agree with the Geneva Convention, the UN, and enlightened nations of the world that torture is NEVER to be condoned. Not ever. Period.
