Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, for one thing, we can't avoid fighting wars. We can, and by law are required to, avoid deliberately inflicting pain on specific individuals in an effort to coerce them to divulge information.
Let me repeat this. Torture is unlawful. It is prohibited by the laws of the United States. It is prohibited by international law. It is prohibited by the Constitution. Engaging in acts of war, if properly sanctioned, is lawful.
As I noted before, there is no point in getting into the moral aspects with you, as you are apparently not equipped to recognize them.
|
You are doing a bait an switch. The only thing we are talking about is the morality of the issue. The legality of the issue is not in question.
We can certainly avoid fighting wars. The French have done it through history.
I think you don't want to talk about the morality of the issue, because you cannot rationally distinguish killings or other brutal acts as part of war, on the one hand, and torture, on the other hand, other than by pointing to what is currently "legal."
It seems to me that what we have done in the case of war is to engage in a balancing test, where we have determined that the horrors and evils we inflict are outweighed by the benefits. I am only suggesting that the same anaysis should be done for torture. I can see no other rational weigh to distinguish among these horrors.
