"Jebbie, you are epitome of decorous reserve today. Imagine that! ;-}"

Missy, ever since Holly kicked my ass a couple of months ago, I have been extremely decorous and reserved and you should have noticed that simple fact.

Last Friday night, Gilbert, stood his ground against five (5) ferocious raccoons from the Christian Scientists church roof, next door.

Compared to Gilbert, you, Madam, are like a pussycat with a Brazilian buzzcut.

I am not advocating for torture; I am saying that there can be emergency situations where it may be necessary.

Sure sounds like advocation to me.

you can kill someone, but you will have to pay the consequences, even if it was in self-defense

That is incorrect. There would be no consequences under the criminal law. Self-defense is a perfect, i.e., complete, defense.

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.

~

I'll leave too. Time to make 2- nonviolent mouse traps.

If I chase mice, everyone I love votes fir thee fury latter.

Stock up on grub, and go visit 'bogbuster' video rentals.

Shoplift for Princess Barbi and slimy Jebbie a good DVD.

I take a hike, and go to Enchanted Treasure Chest Land.

out/over. bath time.

PieHole2. Serious. That's a interesting sounding pesky mime.

Your real name?

Two pie pieces. O pie.

Peace Apple Pie.

“(although his inability to spell Courts Martial is a bit tiresome; I expect that from the idiots, but not from an ex-Marine.)”

In Marine World, there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. Once completing basic training, you are a Marine for life. That point could be important if you are in a bar drinking with Marines, so I thought I would try to prevent an incident or worse. Your comments are too important to UT for us to lose you.

"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?"

Of course, its a ridiculous question, and contrary to Wb's definition of a wildly impractical situation becoming probable, there is no possibility of their ever being a situation in which action a completely assures consequence b. Never, in the history of the universe, has anyone been able to predict with one hundred percent accuracy the outcome of an action.

If you want to reformulate your question as, "would you permit the torture of one person, if there was a high probability that it would have prevented the holocaust" then that's ok, but it obviously brings the silliness of the idea into perspective. By what means would you calibrate this probability? By torturing one person, would a space time worm hole open and Captain Marvel and Mr. Peabody appear and take you back in time with a magic wand to make everything right? How could torturing one person ever produce the outcome you suggest? You might as well have averred if you could piss into a cup and drink it to prevent the holocaust.

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.

Perhaps it is Glenn's great geographical distance from the purple mountain's majesty and amber waves of beer which that which makes this country great. Perhaps, or even possibly mayhaps, Mr. Greenwald has lost touchy-feely with the all a bastards cities gleaming, but I haven't. No, I haven't! I really mean it, too.

Anyway, if Glenn was here in the good ol' US of A, (and who's to say he isn't, I just like to think of him flying down to Rio and consuming mixed drinks with parasols in them) he would know that the only commensurate response to the entire "War on Terror" is one hell of a case of National Amnesia! Doesn't Mr. Greenwald see that the best and brightest young things are all working assiduously to produce one of our greatest National Amnesia's ever?

With a great, bi-partisan effort by Obama and his Administration, assisted by the news media and a few crucial interventions from institutions of higher learning, we could put the entire "War on Terror" down the Memory Hole in about a year. I think we can do it!

bgonne sez:

That is incorrect. There would be no consequences under the criminal law. Self-defense is a perfect, i.e., complete, defense.

Not automatically. There are lots of folks in prison who didn't get away with it. You have to prove it in a court of law, most of the time. There are few prima facie cases of self-defense. Regardless, you'd still pay the spiritual/karmic consequences.

Tough call I wouldn't want to make.