Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
Did you just read the last couple of posts or something? I was very clear - torture is good to use if it can save innocent lives. If it saved innocent lives, how could the torture have been done to a person who was not guilty? It makes no sense.
|
Ok. In my hypothetical situation, there is someone I know, lets call him Jack, who is a terrorist but I don't know this. Jack's travelling somewhere to detonate a bomb; intelligence agencies know vague details but don't know specifically where or when. Team America: World Police bust down my door and demand to know everything I know about Jack and where he's headed. I don't want to talk to them because why should I turn against my friend, who as far as I know is innocent, and give him up to the horrible opressive force that's occupying my country and furthermore, those jerks just broke my door. They decide to waterboard me to find out what I know. I cough up the info and they're off to shoot Jack on sight and save the day.
Now here's the question for you: Would you support torture in that case?
Lets review what you've said on the subject:
If torture can save innocent lives, you support it. In that situation it could and did - so you support it.
You (apparently, if I'm reading things right) don't support torturing innocent people - so you don't support what happened to the narrator of my story.
To reiterate a direct quote from you: "If it saved innocent lives, how could the torture have been done to a person who was not guilty? It makes no sense." Well, I just provided an example where torture could save innocent lives but was done to an innocent person.
edit:
Quote:
|
I am fairly sure innocent people have been tortured and I do not support that, but there have also been innocent people in Canada jailed yet I do not support the removal of all jails in Canada since some innocent people got locked up.
|
If you knew that 80% of people that were jailed in Canada were innocent, would your position on this change?