- Moderator
- #301
Your premise was not appropriate for the question. Torture would not be used if not needed, obviously.Since "information could be gained either with or without torture" means that both would work, I can't imagine why you would pose a question.I'm still awaiting an answer from you. Do you have the guts? Or are you going to keep on ducking and dodging?
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?
I mean clearly torture would be a last resort, right?
In real life - that is the real choice. Information can be gained by other means and we can not be sure which method will bring about accurate inforamtion. So why is torture is chosen instead? Especially torture applied so broadly as the CIA did - not, as they claimed, to just 3 of the most evil masterminds. That was a blatent lie and that is also the seductive path of torture.
The only time I can see a real-life reason for using torture is immediate on-the-battlefield situations where critical information (such as the location of a mine) is needed immediately. That is not the case here.
You seriously believe that? Torture would not be used if it were not perceived as "needed" for what ever reason the torturer deems valid.
While playing Last Christmas by Wham would be enough to break me, it cannot be guaranteed to work on the like of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. So, if you cannot coerce critical information in life and death cases, then I, and most Americans, would sanction whatever means necessary.
That's real life.
Torture didn't work on KSM either.