Originally Posted by dahamsta
What exactly are you trying to say liam88? You keep saying you're not defending torture and you think torture is disgraceful, etc, etc, yet you still appear to be trying to balance it against other things, to justify it in certain circumstances, or because of certain events. I'm having difficulty trying to understand your point.
For example, you say "torture is bad", but "think of 9/11". Why? Is it ok to torture people when 5,000 people have died? What about 2,500? Where's the limit exactly? And who can I torture? Presumably it's ok to torture Richard Reid because obviously he's an attempted murderer (although one would have to wonder at his sanity, or the sanity of any suicide bomber), but what about Saajid Badat? He conspired but he didn't actually do anything, is it ok to torture him?
What about Moazzam Begg, who was returned to Britain after three years in Guantanamo, questioned for a short time and then released sans passport. Was it ok for him to have been tortured, even though it appears he's been victimised since the very beginning? But what if he's lying, would it be ok in retrospect to have tortured him if he was lying?
I feel like killing people sometimes, is it ok to torture me? Where do you draw the line on this front? Is it ok to torture me if I admit to feeling like killing people or do I actually have to make an attempt on someone's life? What about if I try it with a knife, is it ok then? A rubber chicken?
adam