That's a great question. There's always the line "If we do that, we are no better than them." But is that really true?
A war will kill plenty of people, and is usually justified by saying that the deaths in a war are to prevent future atrocities that will cost many more lives.
That's the usual justification for using the atom bomb on Japan. It killed 100,000 or more people I think, but the justification is that it saved many lives in the long run, and primarily saved Allied lives which would be Allied justification for using it, and rightfully so.
So is it wrong to torture one man if it can save countless lives? Kill thousands to save lives, but don't torture one?
He is a self-professed al qeada chief, terrorist, murderer and enemy of the united states. I really don't think there is any question of his guilt or the fact that he posses knowledge about al qaeda operations and future plans. For those reasons I feel he is a very special circumstance and has given up his right to fair treatment.
Tough call but I say torture him if necessary.
Last edited by Sword at Mar 7 2003, 08:52 AM
|