Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Should the United States of America torture people?

Mondak · 03-19-2008, 11:11 AM

The Constitution does a great job of limiting government so that it hopefully does not get out of control. Dividing powers among different branches while making each have oversight over the others has helped - despite the constant loopholes that our elected officials are constantly trying to exploit.

Lets face it, if you REALLY did know that something on the scale of the WTC was going to be destroyed, AND you were sure you had a person who knew the details, you do everything in your power to prevent it - that includes all forms of torture and pretty much murder of your subject to get the info.

The problem is that there really is no effective way to DEFINE and LIMIT the use of torture. If you try to specifically spell out the situations to use it, you would likely end up being either vague or too restrictive. Be to vague and they (over use it) torture me to find out if I know what my neighbor had for dinner the night before he committed a crime. Be too restrictive and you don't use it in a situation where it could have been a savior.

This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution contains a catch-all that can be used for this sort of thing. There is one power that has no oversight other than that it is a public record: The power of a Presidential Pardon.

So here it is: torture is illegal in the US in any form. But if you are DARN sure that you have the right guy who has the right information to prevent a real life catastrophe, you torture him and stop at nothing to get the information. You have just committed a crime and will lose your job as well as your freedom for at least a number of years in prison. The person / people committing the torture bet their OWN lives on the fact that THIS was the time to do it and HOPE that the president gives you an unconditional pardon. The check and balance applied is that the president has to stand behind his decision in the public.

03-19-2008, 11:11 AM	#27 (permalink)
Mondak Industrialist Location: Southern California	The Constitution does a great job of limiting government so that it hopefully does not get out of control. Dividing powers among different branches while making each have oversight over the others has helped - despite the constant loopholes that our elected officials are constantly trying to exploit. Lets face it, if you REALLY did know that something on the scale of the WTC was going to be destroyed, AND you were sure you had a person who knew the details, you do everything in your power to prevent it - that includes all forms of torture and pretty much murder of your subject to get the info. The problem is that there really is no effective way to DEFINE and LIMIT the use of torture. If you try to specifically spell out the situations to use it, you would likely end up being either vague or too restrictive. Be to vague and they (over use it) torture me to find out if I know what my neighbor had for dinner the night before he committed a crime. Be too restrictive and you don't use it in a situation where it could have been a savior. This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution contains a catch-all that can be used for this sort of thing. There is one power that has no oversight other than that it is a public record: The power of a Presidential Pardon. So here it is: torture is illegal in the US in any form. But if you are DARN sure that you have the right guy who has the right information to prevent a real life catastrophe, you torture him and stop at nothing to get the information. You have just committed a crime and will lose your job as well as your freedom for at least a number of years in prison. The person / people committing the torture bet their OWN lives on the fact that THIS was the time to do it and HOPE that the president gives you an unconditional pardon. The check and balance applied is that the president has to stand behind his decision in the public. __________________ All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed Second, it is violently opposed and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)