Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 11:57 AM

  @wbgonne - reason b gone?

  I must interrupt. I was enjoying the read, but I have to interject.

  If someone kidnapped my family and intended to kill them, if I caught someone else who knew where they were but wouldn't say, would I torture the captured person if that was the only way to get the information? I would.

  As others pointed out the legal consequences (you can kill someone, but you will have to pay the consequences, even if it was in self-defense), heru-ur finally pointed out that you have no real way of knowing if the information you get is any damn good. Therefore, no, I would not; not just because I don't have the constitution for it, but because the cost is too high for such a low rate of return.

  Bush/Cheney assumed that 9/11 ushered in an era of PERMANENT EMERGENCY

  Seems to me they manufactured much of these 'emergencies' and so-called threats. Never mind the group who think they engineered the entire 9/11 fiasco which is looking more feasible with every ugly disclosure.

  Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?

  This is a ridiculous question. But, no. I wouldn't, because this is about principles. As I said earlier, if you are not willing to die for them, what's the point?

  You wish to remain in the realm of pure and perfect theory. Sorry, but that's not the real world.

  Nonsense. See above. It's about principles. You either have them, live by them, die by them, or you don't.

  —Retzilian Read Retzilian's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel