It's being reported that the recent terror plot by the islamic facists to plow-up American bound flights in mid-air were foiled based on information obtained by "ways entirely unacceptable here." Read torture saved lives. From what I've read it seems that the the terror attacks were imminent, so in this case torture saved lives.
I'm against torture on principal, but I can't say I'm against it in practice if it's the only thing standing in the way of saving a life, or in this case, thousands of lives.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is very interesting and I'm not sure what I think about it right now. I am certain that principles we don't put into practice are meaningless.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it as soon as somebody is shown to have information about the vile plans of evil man they immedietly scream that they were tortured and therefore they deserve our sympathy?
I am unsure whether Pakistan actually used torture as a means to extract this information, they may have, but they were not the only ones with information. According to the police in Britain a muslim man in the community of the terrorists tipped off the police about a group of men conducting shady activities. This information combined with what they got from Pakistan gave the Bobbies the opportunity to swoop down and make arrests en mass.
Suspicion of torture proves nothing, but we would do well to make an enquiry as to how Pakistan extracted that information. Most critics of torture make the arguement that information extracted from torture is usually not good, i.e, the person confessed to get the torturer to stop not because he/she was guilty. In this case Pakistan did something to get crucial information that saved lives.
I am witholding judgement until I am sure about the details. As much as I detest torture, I only slightly detest less the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the terrorists doing but using the evil done by some as a justification for maiming and killing others? Do you think they tell themselves "let's kill some innocent people today"? Surely they say instead "they are not innocent, they are complicit in evil x, y, z". That's exactly what we are doing when we justify torture.
Is this a struggle of evil against evil to see which evil is more powerful? If so, then it doesn't matter if we win, we still will perish.
If we don't stand for something, for some principles of fairness, decency, and freedom, then why even fight? So one gang of thugs can win over another gang? I have no interest in furthering that end.
Torturers don't torture just the guilty. They torture whomever they suspect of being against them (and they tend to define "them" pretty narrowly). One day the person they suspect might become you. We do NOT want to sanction torture, or encourage torturers in our midst. Period. To do so would be a bad, bad mistake.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm against torture on principle, but I can't say I'm against it in practice if it's the only thing standing in the way of saving a life, or in this case, thousands of lives.
I think this means that you aren't against torture on principle. Or, you are cheap with your principles. Or, and this is more likely, your principles aren't what you think they are.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
According to this source, the British police have been aware of the plot and its participants for quite some time, but succumbed to pressure from the US to sweep down and inconvenience travellers uneccessarily.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
It's being reported that the recent terror plot by the islamic facists to plow-up American bound flights in mid-air were foiled based on information obtained by "ways entirely unacceptable here." Read torture saved lives. From what I've read it seems that the the terror attacks were imminent, so in this case torture saved lives.
I'm against torture on principal, but I can't say I'm against it in practice if it's the only thing standing in the way of saving a life, or in this case, thousands of lives.
If you're against torture in principle, then you are against it in practice. If you are against something you are against it. Yes, torture is VERY effective, at getting information out of a person who has it, however that does not a sound policy make. Setting aside the obvious moral problem, torture is a violation of the Geneva convention, an agreement which has saved the lives of countless people in the past. If we throw that away, we throw more lives away, and that's only the most obvious consequence.
Torture (hello?)= wrong. There is something that we should keep in mind at ALL times.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it frightening that people see this as justification for torture. Have they considered a clear alternative interpretation.
There is currently massive media hype and airport security crack downs because of a "terrorist plot". What evidence is there that such a plot really existed. No bombs have been found. There were no airplane tickets purchased. Most of the arrested individuals didn't even have passports. Which means that the plot wasn't exactly emminant since it takes a couple months to get a passport processed though the inefficient UK bureaucracy.
So now its revealed this entire thing is based on information obtained in Pakistan from a very questionable witness who was being tortured and some vague things said in internet chat rooms?
Am I the only one whose noticed that these "terror alerts" always happen strategically timed around upcoming elections.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My big problem is that in the long run we're going to find out that Pakistan is as bad an ally as Saddam Hussein. We go for these things out of expediency and then later find ourselves wondering how this little speck of a country got so much military equipment to use against us...
It's perpetuating a policy that has been demonstrated time and again to be flawed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Is this a struggle of evil against evil to see which evil is more powerful? If so, then it doesn't matter if we win, we still will perish.
If we don't stand for something, for some principles of fairness, decency, and freedom, then why even fight? So one gang of thugs can win over another gang? I have no interest in furthering that end.
Tatiana, I thought that was a good way of putting it. I think this is what makes me so uneasy with the idea that the good guys would resort to torture to catch the bad guys. We're not really the good guys if we start to act like the bad guys.
I can't help but wonder how many innocent people were tortured until they found one who knew something. Eventually, you'd stumble across somebody who knew something if you tortured enough people.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm against torture on principle, but I can't say I'm against it in practice if it's the only thing standing in the way of saving a life, or in this case, thousands of lives.
I think this means that you aren't against torture on principle. Or, you are cheap with your principles. Or, and this is more likely, your principles aren't what you think they are.
I understand that this is a sticky moral situation, but I don't want the people charged with protecting my life hamstrung by some ivory tower ethics debate about whether or not to sacrifice principals to save lives. Some of us are always cautioning against imposing our morality or principals on others, I especially don't want to do that at the risk of not avoiding mass murder. Sure torture doesn't always produce reliable results, but considering the stakes, sometimes it may be worth the risk. Like BlackBlade so eliquently stated earlier in this post, to paraphrase: As much as I detest torture, I detest more the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't want the people charged with protecting my life hamstrung by some ivory tower ethics debate about whether or not to sacrifice principals to save lives.
I do. My life is not worth my principles; my country is not worth its principles.
quote:As much as I detest torture, I detest more the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it.
I submit that this means you don't actually detest torture. You just detest torturing good people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Torture doesn't work. Real interrogators know that.
I really wonder how they can know this.
Have they actually done studies? If so, how were they able to do so without torturing people? Is it based on anecdotal evidence from actual torturers? Or is is more the case that people really want this to be true, so they claim that it is?
This isn't a snark -- I really do wonder these things.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I don't want the people charged with protecting my life hamstrung by some ivory tower ethics debate about whether or not to sacrifice principals to save lives.
Posted byTomDavidson:
quote:I do. My life is not worth my principles; my country is not worth its principles.
I surely hope that the people charged with protecting my life and your's are not so self centered that they think the sanctitiy of their principals is more important than someone else's life, including yours and mine.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: For some reason you misquoted me, I submit that I said, "As much as I detest torture, I only slightly detest less the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it."
You will find there is no edit to my original post.
Also people seem to be complaining about an opposition that is not as formidable as they are saying. Only one person reservedly said they were for torture in order to save lives.
I myself for example said I would like to see proof of torture before I pass judgement. In this case Pakistan DID glean useful information from the men they arrested, either they just happen to get lucky and torture the right guy, (which is not good) or they tried something else.
Would people be opposed to say propegating the PERCEPTION of torture? As in the person who is being interogated is made to actually believe that he will be tortured if he resists?
Edit: Mig: Would you say there are NO principles worth more than one person's life?
quote:Am I the only one whose noticed that these "terror alerts" always happen strategically timed around upcoming elections.
Many MANY times terrorist acts are planned around upcoming political events, in order to cause people to lose confidence in their leaders, and to throw things into trumoil.
I have another question, is there a word that is the opposite of confidence, but is just a prefix attached to "fidence?" like perhaps "nonfidence" or "afidence?"
quote:As much as I detest torture, I detest more the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it.
I submit that this means you don't actually detest torture. You just detest torturing good people.
To borrow an analogy from another thread, let's say this had gone like this:
Idea: As much as I detest throwing up, I detest more the idea of retaining poison in my stomach that will kill me.
Retort: I submit that this means you don't actually detest throwing up. You just detest throwing up good food.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
We torture one person and gain the info to save an unknown number. Lets guess high, 3,000 lives were saved.
And all we did was allow the Pakistani police to inflict pain on one terrorist.
But the Pakistani police did not just torture one person. They torture many people, most of whom are not terrorists, not guilty, or do not have information that will save 3000 lives.
So how many people would they have to torture before this reasonable idea begins to sound less reasonable? 100? 1000? 10,000? If we torture 6000 people over 3 years so 3000 people can live is that still reasonable?
I think many here are willing to believe its reasonable because they personally are less likely to be a victim of a Pakistani torturer than a victim of a terrorist.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Torture doesn't work. Real interrogators know that.
If the facts of this case are as this thread seems to be assuming (and I'd like to point out that we don't know there's been any real torture involved) then it seems to me that your assertion is directly contradicted by experimental evidence. To wit, torture did work, in this case.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: At first this sound reasonable.
We torture one person and gain the info to save an unknown number. Lets guess high, 3,000 lives were saved.
And all we did was allow the Pakistani police to inflict pain on one terrorist.
But the Pakistani police did not just torture one person. They torture many people, most of whom are not terrorists, not guilty, or do not have information that will save 3000 lives.
So how many people would they have to torture before this reasonable idea begins to sound less reasonable? 100? 1000? 10,000? If we torture 6000 people over 3 years so 3000 people can live is that still reasonable?
I think many here are willing to believe its reasonable because they personally are less likely to be a victim of a Pakistani torturer than a victim of a terrorist.
Dan: If by some wierd circumstance you had to be tortured as a means to extract information (your friend is a terrorist who could not stand to see you take the rap for his actions) that would save the lives of say 3000 civilians. Would you submit to the torture?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Torture doesn't work. Real interrogators know that.
I really wonder how they can know this.
Have they actually done studies? If so, how were they able to do so without torturing people? Is it based on anecdotal evidence from actual torturers? Or is is more the case that people really want this to be true, so they claim that it is?
This isn't a snark -- I really do wonder these things.
The fact that U.S. soldiers are trained to resist torture doesn't mean that torture is never effective. In fact, it would seem to indicate that, at least in some situations, it is effect, or why would it need to be resisted?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Torture doesn't work. Real interrogators know that.
If the facts of this case are as this thread seems to be assuming (and I'd like to point out that we don't know there's been any real torture involved) then it seems to me that your assertion is directly contradicted by experimental evidence. To wit, torture did work, in this case.
I wouldn't be surprised if information was obtained by torture that the whole thing turns out to be an over reaction. That is one of the weaknesses of torture: very inaccurate information.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
The fact that U.S. soldiers are trained to resist torture doesn't mean that torture is never effective. In fact, it would seem to indicate that, at least in some situations, it is effect, or why would it need to be resisted?
Good point. I don't know either way though. I just got my info from a little reading when the whole torture thing really hit the news.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mig: Would you say there are NO principles worth more than one person's life?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I don't think that the principle that torture is wrong is one of them. Sometimes principles conflict. For example, on principle I'm think wars and killing people is bad, and western liberties are good. But, despite the first principle I support going to war to defend western liberties, be it against the nazis, the communists, the serb under Slobodan Milosevich, and, someday soon, Iran. Another example: On principle I'm against violence, but I think I'd use violence to defend myself or my loved ones.
I think that torture is wrong but I also think that not doing everything you can to save a life is also wrong, especially if you can save a life (or lives) by not taking a life. Both, I think are valid principles. However, sometimes a country or person just has to decide which principle is best for its survival.
Which raises the question: Will Western Values let us win the war against the islamic Facists? You can't say that we must lead by example because our example hasn't done much to disuade them from wanting to kill us. In fact, I think they view some of our values as a weakness to exploit.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is one of the weaknesses of torture: very inaccurate information.
I keep hearing people say things like this as though of course they are true, but so far I haven't seen anything to convince me that they actually are.
Again, I'm not saying that I think they are false -- I'm saying that I haven't seen any convincing evidence. Or, for that, any evidence beyond people having opinions.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would I endure pain so that others could live? Yes.
Would I inflict pain so that others could live? Pause. Yes.
Would I inflict pain on the hopes that maybe by doing that, others might possibly live? No.
The argurment that 3000 Civilian lives are worth 10,000 terrorists being tortured is interesting, but not the case here. Pakistan police do not just torture the guilty. Far more innocent people have found their way into the political torture dungeons in Pakistan than would have been killed during a 10 Plane mass bombing.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mr_porteiro_head: be fair, you can't assume Dan would not be SURE before agreeing to inflict pain on others. Judge the validity of what constitutes, "SURE" somewhere else.
Mig: In the US if a child is sick and could die but the parents refuse medical assistance because they believe "God will heal the child if it is his will" the hospital has the right to seize the child and treat him/her.
So I guess in that circumstance a principle is worth less then the right to live.
How about this Mig, if a doctor has 3 patient wheeled into the ER, one needs a liver, one needs a kidney, and one needs a heart. The 3 people need these organs as fast as possible or they will all die, the doctor does not have the organs and sees a drunk street drifter walk into the hospital.
Would it be more ethical for the doctor to A: Conceded defeat and let all 3 patients die, or B: make the call that hopefully nobody will miss the drunk street drifter (a pretty likely situation) and to take his organs so as to save more lives?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If I know that the inflicting of disabling pain would stop further pain, then fine.
If I don't know, but am only guessing, then I am most likely increasing pain in the world. I become the problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is one of the weaknesses of torture: very inaccurate information.
Torture is effective. That's why it's used.
Yes, people will admit ot anything, but every account that I've read of people who do it for a living indicated that that's not what the torture was for. That is, the purpose of the torture was accurate information. So, what they did was that they would write things down as the torture progressed and ask questions different ways to see if they get the same response. They would further cross-check this information against other information they had that they knew was true.
Am I advocating torture? No, not at all.
Does what I say lend weight to some who advocate for torture? Sure.
However, the argument against torture shouldn't be that it usually isn't effective in getting information when used properly so much as that you're opening the door to a practice that can be abused very easilly. It's easy, I think, to go from torture is right to stop mass casualties, to torture is right to save one person, to just plain, ol' 'criminals' have a right to be tortured because it's what they deserve.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, Tom and docmagick didn't misquote you, they quoted Mig's paraphrase of your sentence.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: For some reason you misquoted me, I submit that I said, "As much as I detest torture, I only slightly detest less the vermin that had this information and had to be coerced into communicating it."
I wasn't quoting you at all, BB. I was quoting Mig, who was responding to you.
---------
quote:On principle I'm against violence, but I think I'd use violence to defend myself or my loved ones.
You know, Mig, I don't think "on principle" is really what you mean. If it is what you mean, you're not a very principled person.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: However, the argument against torture shouldn't be that it usually isn't effective in getting information when used properly so much as that you're opening the door to a practice that can be abused very easilly. It's easy, I think, to go from torture is right to stop mass casualties, to torture is right to save one person, to just plain, ol' 'criminals' have a right to be tortured because it's what they deserve.
This is the key reason to abhore torture. Ticking bomb scenarios can be compelling and hard to argue against, but condoning torture inevitably leads to a steep and slippery slope. Also, it's not just criminals who would be tortured, but also accused criminals who are innocent.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: However, the argument against torture shouldn't be that it usually isn't effective in getting information when used properly so much as that you're opening the door to a practice that can be abused very easilly. It's easy, I think, to go from torture is right to stop mass casualties, to torture is right to save one person, to just plain, ol' 'criminals' have a right to be tortured because it's what they deserve.
This is the key reason to abhore torture. Ticking bomb scenarios can be compelling and hard to argue against, but condoning torture inevitably leads to a steep and slippery slope. Also, it's not just criminals who would be tortured, but also accused criminals who are innocent.
I'd be wary about saying that something is categorically wrong. We make allowances for dishonesty, theft, and even murder. Should torture be beyond the bounds of justification?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mig: In the US if a child is sick and could die but the parents refuse medical assistance because they believe "God will heal the child if it is his will" the hospital has the right to seize the child and treat him/her.
So I guess in that circumstance a principle is worth less then the right to live.
How about this Mig, if a doctor has 3 patient wheeled into the ER, one needs a liver, one needs a kidney, and one needs a heart. The 3 people need these organs as fast as possible or they will all die, the doctor does not have the organs and sees a drunk street drifter walk into the hospital.
Would it be more ethical for the doctor to A: Conceded defeat and let all 3 patients die, or B: make the call that hopefully nobody will miss the drunk street drifter (a pretty likely situation) and to take his organs so as to save more lives?
You need to clarify this scenario. It's not clear to me what principles you think are in conflict. (BTW, I hate hypotheticals.)
I don't think that a drunk street drifter's life is of less value than anyone else's life. Or that one sick person's life is more valuable than that of another. There's not much of a moral delemma in the idea of killing one innocent person to save the lives of three people with whom he shares no factual relation. If the drunk were a terrorist whose explosive device led to the condition of the three people in need of the transplant, then I can see a moral issue on whether to kill the terrorsit to save the lives of his victims.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the US if a child is sick and could die but the parents refuse medical assistance because they believe "God will heal the child if it is his will" the hospital has the right to seize the child and treat him/her.
Can you cite this? I know there are cases where it's happened, but can you cite that this is a general principle, especially the part about the hospital seizing the child?
quote:Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.)
quote:In the US if a child is sick and could die but the parents refuse medical assistance because they believe "God will heal the child if it is his will" the hospital has the right to seize the child and treat him/her.
Can you cite this? I know there are cases where it's happened, but can you cite that this is a general principle, especially the part about the hospital seizing the child?
Ill get on it, I had it in my criminal justice book and I just threw it away not 2 days ago Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In 1974, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare first required states to have clauses in their child abuse and neglect legislation that permits exemptions on religious grounds. If a state refused, they would not receive federal child abuse protection grants. By 1999, 40 (one source says 41) states had complied. Parents who choose prayer in place of medical care for a sick or injured child cannot be prosecuted in those jurisdictions. This federal regulation no longer exists, but most the state laws remain on the books. In only 4 states have these laws been overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds: HI, MA, MD & SD as the other two.
By 2002, 38 states have laws that permit parents to reject medical treatment for their children in favor of faith healing. However, in most of those states, the law specifies that if a child's condition is life-threatening, then a physician must be consulted. -----
I was mistaken that its a general rule in the US: In 1993, Douglass Lundman sued his ex-wife and various Christian Science groups due over the death of his 11 year old son in 1989. He had juvenile diabetes - a potentially fatal disorder which is routinely treated with insulin, diet and exercise. While under the care of his Christian Science mother, he had fallen into a diabetic coma and died. The jury found that the mother, Kathleen McKown, her new husband, the Christian Science practitioner, the Christian Science nursing home that provided his nurse, the local representative of the Committee on Publication and the Church itself shared responsibility for the death. Lundman was awarded compensatory damages of over 5 million dollars; the Church was assessed an additional 9 million in punitive damages. The former were reduced to 1.5 million on appeal, but the church's punitive damages were not lowered. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. By refusing to review the case, the court let the judgment stand. Stephen Carter criticized this decision of the Supreme Court in the New York Times. He feels that religious freedom is jeopardized when faith groups are punished for non-mainstream beliefs. "...the Justices have left the door open to all sorts of mischief."
----
I am fairly confident of cases existing where the hospital ceized the child, but I need to look deeper, Ill post later.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My uncle is a judge in Florida, and I know he has ordered medical care for children against the wishes of religious parents. He said cases like that were some of the most emotionally wrenching he decided. I don't know any details, like if the kids were "seized."
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd be wary about saying that something is categorically wrong. We make allowances for dishonesty, theft, and even murder. Should torture be beyond the bounds of justification?
If you go down that road, couldn't you rationalize terrorism? There has to be a line somewhere. Is the line at murder, torture, terrorism? Mass murder? Genocide?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware of various prosecutions for failure to obtain medical care and of judges ordering medical care for children. It's the idea that hospitals can seize children I'm particularly interested in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: This is the best instance I could find
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Philadelphia couple whose son nearly died of cancer because they chose to treat his condition with faith healing instead of medicine were sentenced Thursday to 14 months probation. Daniel and Anne Foster will not get custody of their 3-year-old son, Patrick, who has been living with his paternal aunt and uncle since last year. A judge also ordered the pair to put two other children into the care of a licensed pediatrician. The couple, members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation church, were convicted in May of child endangerment and criminal conspiracy after refusing to get life-saving medical care for their son in 1997 because of their religious beliefs. Prosecutors said the boy, then 2, was only hours from death when social workers took him to a hospital. See http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2556249027-f58
The link doesnt work but: http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc3.html more or less outlines what happened. I am trying to find an official news link to the story but Reuters sucks at letting me search their archives
edit: Perhaps I am using "sieze" in the wrong way. I do not think the hospital staff are actually dispatched to take custody of the child from the parents, I imagine the police can do that just fine.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd be wary about saying that something is categorically wrong. We make allowances for dishonesty, theft, and even murder. Should torture be beyond the bounds of justification?
If you go down that road, couldn't you rationalize terrorism? There has to be a line somewhere. Is the line at murder, torture, terrorism? Mass murder? Genocide?
Well, it depends on what which you think is worse -- killing somone or torturing them. If you think torture is worse, then it is an upgrade, and perhaps you could continue rationalize worse things, like genocide, in the same way.
If you believe that killing them is worse, then it's a downgrade from state-sanctioned killing to state-sanctioned torture, and the same arguments just can't work for genocide.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
