Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by getreadyalready
Really, and what do you propose be done to people that are wrong? Do they get to be tortured by their victim? I still can't believe anyone would think
that it's ok to torture people.... It's totally insane way of thinking... Would you also not object to a cop that thinks he has the right guy going
a round or two with torture?
My view is one of acceptable "battlefield torture" although it would apply to law enforcement as well.
If there is a real-time, immediate need situation, and the subject has information that could save lives, we should extract that information at all
costs. I don't care if we go medieval on him. We should do whatever it takes to rescue the child or thwart the attack, or disarm the bomb, or
whatever.
Now, I would never condone torture for stale intel days later back at the prison. That is useless anyway.
If we allowed cops or soldiers the ability to do this, but with the caveat that if the subject was later exonerated, then they would face criminal
charges for anything they did. Assault, torture, murder, whatever fits, then it
should be enough to make sure folks aren't just abusing their
power. The criminal charges should go right up the chain to anybody that ordered it as well. As an example, I think everyone from Cheney and
Rumsfield on down should be held accountable for Abu Ghraib. That was deplorable, and it didn't turn up any decent intel anyway.
So, immediate threat, battlefield situation, ends justify the means. All other occurrences are useless and should be outlawed. And, they better not
guess at it, because if they guess wrong, they are going to pay the piper. Before they torture anybody, they better be dam sure it is the correct
person, and they really have useful information.
edit on 9-11-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)