Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am comfortable with the idea that our leaders may, in extraordinary circumstances, do things that aren't legal. For example, Clinton authorized some renditions over legal objections, as described in Clarke's book. I am not comfortable with the proposition that hypothetical extraordinary circumstances are a justification to change the law governing ordinary situations. If the situations are extraordinary and compelling, I trust prosecutors to make the right call later on. Take the CIA operative who hypothetically tortures a terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is about to go off. Does anyone think em will be prosecuted?
|
That makes sense. So you agree that in certain circumstances torture is the right call.
