LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 216
0 members and 216 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-28-2006, 06:02 PM   #11
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point I was trying to make, and that I thought the letter amplified, is that although there may be the rare situation where torture is the lesser of two evils, this does not mean that the rules should be changed to make torture OK. It means that when someone feels driven to violate rules against torture, sometimes in retrospect this will seem to have been the proper decision.
I read this as, although, sometime in rare circumstances, it may be the right thing to do to use torture, we don't want to statutorily recognize this because it may lead to abuse. So when it comes down to the cost benefit analysis, it is better to put our CIA operatives in a cloud of uncertainty when they are trying to protect innocents from harm, and possibly have to face prosecution for doing the right thing, than have the possibility that the statutory language may lead to abuse of prisoners.
Spanky is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 PM.