I forget the context, but I think I was being picky and objecting that the torture could fail in addition to objecting to context.
It is false dichotomy since the scenario given has only two allowed answers. Torture the terrorist or allow NYC to blow up. It assumes there are no other valid methods by which NYC can be prevented from being nuked. That's what makes it false dichotomy. Perhaps there are many other methods to do so. There are a lot of assumptions made in the "Torture a terrorist or NYC blows up" false dichotomy including that the authorities have a terrorist with pertinent information on the disarming of the bomb in question, that there is no other way to disarm the bomb, that you can get reliable information from said terrorist under duress, etc. It's not enough to make generalized torture policy off of. How many innocent people get tortured? How much viable information comes out of torture? Of course we most likely would never have access to the full statistics as I'm sure much of it is classified. Still the point remains. There are well too many uncertainties involved with any actual terrorist case and the situations under which the false dichotomy is presented is one of low probability.
okay, but now you are ignoring probabilities.
waterboard the prisoner: 98% chance he will tell you in time
pretty-please the prisoner: 1% chance he will tell you in time
offer to bribe the prisoner: 5% chance he will tell you in time
search NYC: 5% chance of finding it, with a 0.5% chance of finding and disarming it
search NYC while ordering an evacuation: 2.5% chance of finding the bomb, 100% chance of mass-panic, riots, killings, etc
It's a moot argument anyway. Torture is illegal in this country.
I don't care what other countries think any more. Make fun of the USA, but as soon as their butts are in a sling, who do they run to? Uh huh.
.
Agreed. About the only practical effect of the "no harsh interrogation" rule is that we are no longer taking as many prisoners as we used to. If we can't get information out of them, there isn't much point in feeding them or releasing them to try again.It's way simplistic for me. Kind of like if you enter my home and harm anyone in it. I'll do whatever it takes to protect everyone there. Yes, I'll call 911. You just have to determine if I make the call before or after I've dealt with you. Same theory for me on torture and the US and our enemies. You do whatever it takes. WE come first.
Statistics are completely made up, 42% of the population knows that.
But seriously, it really sounds like you completely made up those numbers.
Amnesty International wants Bush prosecuted for his roll in waterboarding. One of the defenses of Bush I have come across is that torture is when used to defend innocent lives. I will admit, it is an interesting question for me to explore.
What is your opinion?
Does defense justify torture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?