would I torture the captured person if that was the only way to get the information? I would.

This is a point I see apologists for torture resort to again and again, as if it actually made sense. My question is: how would you know if abusing someone is "the only way to get the information?" How exactly? This is not a question of "principle;" it is a very, very "practical" question.

laws DO NOT and CAN NOT cover every situation that may arise in the real world.

What an interesting position. Under what circumstances should laws not apply, and what do you propose to put in their place?

law re: torture should provide an exception for emergencies of the kind I identified (and you have not addressed).

The "emergencies" you identified are, in actuality, unlikely to the point of impossibility. If a time-traveling lawman could go back to the morning of September 11 and capture Mohammed Atta, what need would he have to torture him, knowing all we know about the attacks? How likely is it really that we would know so much about an impending crime except for one critical piece of information held by someone conveniently in our custody... and even in that incredibly unlikely scenario, how could we be sure that torture is an effective way of getting that information?

Why do some people have such a need to do intellectual backflips to justify torture? Why not just say "because I want to," and leave it at that? Such a position, while morally vile, would at least have the virtue of being honest.

Once again I'll ask for that elusive practical answer: Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?

In what possible system of logic is that a "practical" question? How would you know the painful abuse of one person would prevent the Holocaust?

You keep proposing these wildly improbable hypotheticals. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using this word "practical," and I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sometimes "wildly impractical hypotheticals" become real. That is my point.

That's not your point. Your point is that we should provide exceptions to the law for wildly impractical hypothetical situations where torture may or may not provide information that will save lives.

Again: how would you know that torturing someone would provide the information you seek in these hypotetical situations? And if you don't know that in advance, what happens to your jstification for torture?

This is an absolutely practical question which you keep evading.

these are difficult questions legally and morally that do not lend themselves to simple answers. THAT IS MY POINT.

Funny. A minute ago you were saying your POINT was that impobably hypotheticals sometimes happen. Wouldn't you hate it if you had to argue with you?

Addressing your POINT of the moment, though: no, these are not difficult questions legally. At all. The law is quite clear: torture is illegal. Full stop. The moral question - whether certain otherwise immoral acts are justifiable to prevent a greater wrong - is enormously difficult to defend prospectively... that is, without absolute knowledge of the outcome.

If you want to have this kind of rarefied philosophical discussion, I'm game... but you started by calling this a "practical" argument. And it's nothing of the sort.

that begs the question: What to do when all those factors ARE present?

Again, Good Goddess, for the last time: how can you know ahead of time that "a) said person actually possesses critical information; b) that information can be reliably extracted via torture; c) the information "extracted" will happily prevent some earth-shaking event?"

If you cannot know those things ahead of time - and you cannot, then you are committing a crime. That is all. As you say, "there is no excuse or justification for torture and there is nothing to debate." You lose, you get nothing, good day to you sir.

Enough.

Nobody was cooler than Wilder's Wonka. "The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last."

Note the bar on the right hand side of the screen, and consider the fact that you don't have to read anything you don't want to.

kthxbai

no one has bothered to adress the content of either of our postings. Why do you think that is?

What stings (I suppose) is the creeping realization on the Left that their side isn't the principled champion of justice that many here would suggest.

Some rhetoric lays waste to itself.

I suppose.

What should the U.S. president do? What would you do if you were the President?

Obey the law. I don't care if the President really, honestly believed that burning holes in Atta's scrotum with a solder gun would yield the identity of the other 18 hijackers. Separate from the fact that he has no way of knowing that, it's against the law. It is morally wrong and it is legally wrong.

Again, though... the fact that you can construct an elaborate scenario of vanishingly small probability that is so alarming that you are tempted to break the laws of this country and of human dignity is not reason enough to break those laws.

Just. The. Opposite.

I do not want a revolution (if one can be avoided).

I never said anything about what you want, because I don't know what you want. I don't think any of us knows. You've never said.

You are correct. I should have written "I've never read anything where you said what you wanted."

Clearly, though, it'd be easier for me to go back through your 765 comments than it would be for you to answer the several people who have asked you to state your position here.

Thanks so much.

It's so dark.