[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?

  • From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:58:24 -0400

>>Instead of definitions of torture, look at its consequences.

I cited one consequence. Khalid Sheik Mohammed talked. Many of his statements were corroborated and included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Ask yourself why the US would want to use torture on a handful of al-Qaeda? Because it often works, or it works often enough to make it potentially useful.

There wouldn't have been a push to expand harsh interrogation techniques if they weren't useful. Why take the Propaganda War hit for torture if it doesn't work?

Your statement that, "The US now has several thousand CIA and military persons who have learned how to torture" is factually untrue. Only a small number of people are certified for harsh interrogation techniques. The rest, if caught, get the slammer.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: