Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Augi
Isn't anyone going to argue against this? Who voted "I don't see anything wrong with torture"?
What is the OP's opinion?
|
I voted 'No. Never for any reason.' Sorry, I probably should've included this information in my post.
Personally, the *only* justifiable scenario I can think of is the 'ticking bomb' one, and, like others have said, that doesn't happen outside of Hollywood. That said, if it *did* happen, do you really think Jack...er...sorry...the federal agent in charge...would get prosecuted (assuming he did, in fact, save millions of lives by breaking some guys fingers)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Killing is usually pretty quick. As we've seen, torture can go on for years. That's a rather serious difference, wouldn't you agree?
|
Not only that, but killing someone *once they are no longer a threat* is universally forbidden under the laws of war. Shooting someone when they're pointing a gun at you is what happens in war. You may wound them, or kill them, but it is not torture or murder. Shooting them once they are no longer a threat is torture, or murder, even if 10 seconds ago they were 'the enemy', bent on killing you.