- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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.
Thank you for telling me what my point is.
If you read my initial comment, you will see that I addressed the question of efficacy. Frankly, I don't know enough about interrogation techniques of this sort to say how useful they are in securing immediate information. Obviously, if there is not reasons to think it will work, there is no reason to do it. Getting to the harder question, what does one do if there is a 99% chance the torture will work to save other lives? Or a 30% chance? 1%? No doubt these are difficult questions legally and morally that do not lend themselves to simple answers. THAT IS MY POINT.
No mas.
