Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Which is why you're writing this from a bunker in eastern Europe after having tortured someone one while knowing full well that you most likely wouldn't get the information you were after.
|
I repeat. I would not "torture" anyone unless I had supporting evidence that they actually had the information I was seeking. and generally 'foot soldiers' are not the people who would have high level strategic information, they tend to only know what their task is, and I agree "torture" would be of no value.
---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The pirates weren't disarmed and in captivity when they were shot so I don't see how it's relevant to a debate about torture.
|
Of course, I understand why you don't see the relevance. I doubt I can make it clear, but it is o.k. to shoot people in the head in a criminal matter when there are clear alternatives and the evidence is not 100% certain that the alleged people are who or what we think they are, but is not o.k. to use enhance interrogation techniques against high level known and confessed terrorists/enemy combatants in a declared war. Like I said, given you not seeing the relevance and me seeing the relevance - if I was the guy in the field and you my commander-in-chief, I would make your life easier by asking the enemy to talk or walk.
Quote:
|
Not on this we don't. You can't shoot someone in the back of the head when we've got him in captivity. Not even Alberto Gonzales could get you out of a murder charge for that one. You're trying to make waterboarding sound better by comparing it to executing someone by shooting him in the back of the head. Don't be silly.
|
He would not be shot while in captivity.