Probably the best (but still problematic) argument for the permissibility of torture is the ticking time bomb argument. Amongst all the red herrings, Liz Cheney tossed out the time bomb argument to defend the Bush Administration and her dear old dad on MSNBC. There's none of this one-percent doctrine stuff in the ticking bomb scenario, hence the ticking! But, we know that the Bush Administration went all any means necessary on the basis of that doctrine. In ticking time bomb scenarios, you are reasonably sure that the bomb is, in fact, ticking! It's not that there's one percent chance of a ticking bomb. If you've got time to fly people around the world and torture them 100s of times over the course of months of interrogation, then you're not operating under ticking time bomb conditions. So, the best (but still problematic) argument for the permissibility of torture does not seem to apply to what went on under the Bush Administration. And, this is why I do not buy Liz Cheney's defense of the her dear old dad. Even the best argument for it, does not support their program of torture as policy.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Bill Maher
SweetPeaz
odetteroulette
Soap Box Amy
Madame Bitch
Thomas Rogers
Salon.com
Comments
A similar rationale could be made for just rounding up everybody of whom our government is remotely suspicious, and torturing them to an extent determined by the availability of staff - not just torturers, but people to investigate the validity of whatever information is blurted out. Except for the people detained - and those whom they would implicate - the world would be safer.
If safety is the priority, a police state is probably the way to go. Free societies are a risky business.