Honestly, I thought he was a wackjob. Anyone who writes an article that is promoting torture has got to be a few fries short of a happy meal, right? Well, actually, wrong.
Against all I have been taught growing up, I agree with him. I agree with the idea of using torture in extreme cases. He uses an example of saving hundreds of lives by torturing one life in order to find some vital information. One life is greater than 100. So what about that one life? The individual gave up the rights to their life when they decided to take the lives of hundreds more into their own hands.
Though there are some gaps in his argument, torture provides an option when there are no others. Torture is an opportunity for the government to at least attempt to change things before they happen rather than just holding fruitless interrogations. No, its not particularly admirable, pulling out people's toenails. But neither is standing by while innocent lives are damaged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About A.Hugs
I am a puppy dog, prairie dog, sometimes a kitten, and always sweet pea.
Um...
Sometimes, I only come to school for the sake of Marta's fudge.
1 comments:
I do agree with you, Aly, but I have one issue with your post. You used the term "extreme cases," (and so did I, so I have this issue too) and if you're going to resort to torture, I'm curious as to exactly what qualifies as an 'extreme case.' It's pretty obvious if it's a bomb in the middle of Manhattan or something, but what if it's a bomb in the basement of an apartment building or a business or a restaurant? Something with less than 200 people. Does that qualify as 'extreme?' I guess that's my only problem with it, and the author used that term too.
If you're going to condone something under 'extreme circumstances,' you first have to define the parameters of those circumstances.
Post a Comment