Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your family had been kidnapped and they had 3 hours to live.
if you had an accomplish in custody and you knew to water board them was the only way to save your family, would you allow the accomplish to be water boarded in order to save your family
I might allow the water boarding of an accomplice. I don't know what an "accomplish" is. Up to this point I thought it was a verb.
We should waterboard every American man, woman and child. That way we'll be sure to successfully waterboard dangerous terrists who might exist among us.
So the fact--and it's not a speculation, it is an actual fact--that torture has never been shown to reliably produce accurate information makes no difference to you?
This is a ridiculous analogy. You can never know all the things that the hypothetical question claims you know. The person you have in custody might be an accomplice or might not. The person might know where the kidnap victim is or might not. You might have only three hours to save the victim or you might not. You might be able to get accurate information from the accomplice (hint: buy a dictionary) or you might not.
When people make this kind of phony analogy they are really looking for a way to justify their animal instincts to torture someone they hate to avenge a wrong that has been done them. This accomlishes nothing.
so you would water board someone to save your family but you would not do so to save someone else's family
I'd waterboard them but only if I thought it would produce a benefit (high probability of saving someone's life) greater than the punishment I'd face after. This is what's good about having a law against it. If I'm just on a fishing expedition without the certain immediacy posed here (99.999% of all situations) then I'm probably not going to do it. If I do it and it saves someone's life or I can show it could have, a prosecutor probably will not bring charges against me and a jury will probably not convict me and if they do, I would gladly serve the time.
I'd waterboard them but only if I thought it would produce a benefit (high probability of saving someone's life) greater than the punishment I'd face after. This is what's good about having a law against it. If I'm just on a fishing expedition without the certain immediacy posed here (99.999% of all situations) then I'm probably not going to do it. If I do it and it saves someone's life or I can show it could have, a prosecutor probably will not bring charges against me and a jury will probably not convict me and if they do, I would gladly serve the time.
the question assumed you knew they were an accomplice. would you use any means needed to get the information to save your family
maybe american should not stick their head in the sand and ignore a threat
Good. Go fight them on your own. I won't waste my taxpayer money fighting a boogeyman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
