In case you noticed I didn't use 24 to say that torture should be illegal only that I could imagine such a situation happening. Very far fetched but I don't think out of the realm of impossibility.
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but you're comment that "there are situations where even murder is justified" is pretty vague.
Okay, do we intentionally murder as many innocents as we can on a large scale? No. Do we capture non-combatants and reporters and aide workers and murder them on the public stage? No. Do we torture captured enemies in an effort to gain information about their organization and their operation? Yes, occasionally. Where is the point where you see our being on the same level?
Your carefully worded questions aside, I don't the issue here is a "level". It's yes or no. You choose to support that which, when done to you, you condemn. Frankly, it's disgusting.
I'm much more opposed to death than torture... My "carefully worded" questions are meant to be accurate depictions of what is going on. I think they are. If you think I left something important out, bring it on. I wasn't prepared to do a comprehensive list; I was just listing some things off the top of my head (no pun intended): Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl and the aide worker whose name escapes me. They were in Iraq to report on it or to bring relief to the suffering of civilians and they were publicly executed for it. Oh yeah, and didn't they bomb the Red Cross hotel headquarters and kill the chief guy there..
there is pretty much a consensus from the experts that torture does not work and is counterproductive.
Giddy: What about the US's rather well documented torture and murder of an afgani taxi cab driver? Or the german citizen who was tortured and sued the US accordingly (and was denied retribution in a fantastically twisted judgement)? My criticism of your questions is that they are one-sided. Which is generally my criticism of anyone who supports torture out of some bizarre sense of righteousness. The nationalist never sees the wrongdoings committed by his "side" - your last two posts are perfect demonstrations of this mentality. Evil and grotesque people use torture. I'd like to think that Americans are better and stronger than that.
I have heard the term "justifiable homicide" used and have heard of cases where someone was deliberatly killed, with pre-meditation, and not convicted. I'm not very knowledgeable of the history of these cases but I recall most deal with self-defense or in response to a long term pattern of abuse and the victim taking action in what they considered the only guarentee they could of safety. Anyway my point is that we can't predict every situation and I can't rule out an extreme situation. If such a situation were to arise though the answer to me would be if it was felt that there was no other recourse but to torture to submit to the law and have it decided in trial whether it was justified or not. What concerns me is if torture is given a loophole then that will be exploited and there will be no accountability.
While we aren't close to our enemies in terms of moral standing the question is should we be even in the same moral ballpark as our enemies? We are held to a far higher standard than our enemies is because it is accepted that we aren't near the moral standard of our enemies. The problem is when we take that for granted and decide we can water down our standards.
giddy, outside of fictional TV shows, the position of supporting "torture sometimes" is not sustainable. (edit: added quotes so you don't think I meant it is sometimes not sustainable. It is always not sustainable.) Torture does not work, according to all experts. Torture is morally unsupportable to the vast majority of religions and ethical systems on the planet. Combine those, and what do you get? A big steaming pile of a policy driven by fear and ignorance. It's on all of our shoes now, and everyone in the world can smell it on us. We should wash this crap off ASAP.
So giddy, I can gather from this that you would prefer to be tortured than dead? Well golly, that's good to know. As B-Bob pointed out, among others, we're not talking about a stupid TV show. We're talking about the Bush Administration being responsible for dragging the name and reputation of the United States through the mud for doing hideous acts against people who haven't had a trial, may be innocent, and are subjected to something that not only doesn't work, but puts your government on the same moral level of Saddam and a host of other dictators, most of whom we do business with and haven't invaded. You might ponder that. You also might ponder if this is the country you want your kids to grow up in. It sure as hell isn't the country I knew growing up and have known throughout my life. The most perverse thing George W. Bush has done is to attempt to create his "Homeland" in his own image. Willing to torture, willing to bomb innocents "for the greater good," willing to make our country an international pariah, viewed with disdain by a huge swath of the world because of his actions, willing to invade and occupy a country no worse than many others whose leaders he welcomes to the White House, willing to lie to Americans and Congress without blushing, willing to spy upon Americans without their knowledge, while ignoring Congressional requirements of judicial oversight. All that and much more I don't feel like typing, it's so damned depressing. Yet he still has those who view him as a hero and a great American. That sickens me. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush.
We've disagreed about the possibility of that situation, so I won't go back into that again. I will say that bringing up that very remote possibility is off track, because those situations have not existed and the torture that's going on now isn't related to what the Bush administration is using torture for, and why the current nominee wont' call waterboarding torture. There has been no ticking bomb in a major city scenario, and yet people bring up that scenario to justify what is going on now, and what they hope to continue to do, which is in no way connected.
One thing that is almost always overlooked is that the torturers are affected in ways that are not good. I don't want any administration, especially this one, telling soldiers and other Americans that you have to do this for the country. (And then ignoring them when the inevitable issues develop.) Government sponsored torture is bad for our soldiers two ways... both on the receiving and giving end.
As I said before I can't predict every situation and while the ticking time bomb in a majore city hasn't happened before how are we to know it might not. My point is rather make policy on such a remote possibility it is better to leave something like that to be judged in a court of law.
