Hi,
In the case of these particular rights, I am opposed to allowing any government agency to use torture. The main reason is that it is not a viable way to obtain reliable information nor to obtain a believable confession. The cost in loss of reputation and co-operation by third parties caused by using torture is not worth the benefits derived from the torture. And the position of world leader for democracy and freedom rings a bit hollow when the we adopt the methods we are supposedly fighting. If we are bastards, where does the justification for overthrowing dictatorial bastards go? And, really, does anyone want to give the right to decide to use torture to the type of person who would be willing to commit or condone the act? The potential for abuse is just too great.
Of course, the question of just what torture consists of still needs to be addressed. There is a need to extract information, there is a need to extract valid confessions, and (at least I think so) there is a need to punish lawbreaking. Somewhere between breakfast in bed at a five-star hotel and slow flaying there is a point where torture starts. Too many of the idiots who have posted on this topic seem to think that if the breakfast has marmalade instead of strawberry jam, that line has been crossed. I think that those bleeding heart idiots have contributed greatly to the lawlessness of modern society. But that's another topic.
So, no. The state should not use torture, neither internationally nor internally. And the same should (and already does) apply to the citizens. However, what an individual is willing to do for his family is not bounded by the law. Both sides in this argument have ignored that distinction. A person may be willing to break the law, even a law that he agrees with, for the sake of a family member. I tried to make this point earlier with the example of perjury. As for me, if by your pain I can save my loved ones, then you will suffer even if I eventually have to fry for it.
Hamilton understood the nature of man and the reason for government, Jefferson did not. So did Madison, but that is not pertinent here. Sorry -- brain fart.
--Pete
Quote:Hell, if we take that angle, who needs any rights? I'm sure the potential wellbeing of your family supercedes any of them.There is a fundamental difference between the rights granted to the population by the state and the actions of an individual. There are actions which are reserved to the state (e.g., incarceration), actions which both the state and private individuals can participate in (e.g., disaster relief), actions which individuals can perform which are banned to the state (e.g, censorship), and actions banned to both.
In the case of these particular rights, I am opposed to allowing any government agency to use torture. The main reason is that it is not a viable way to obtain reliable information nor to obtain a believable confession. The cost in loss of reputation and co-operation by third parties caused by using torture is not worth the benefits derived from the torture. And the position of world leader for democracy and freedom rings a bit hollow when the we adopt the methods we are supposedly fighting. If we are bastards, where does the justification for overthrowing dictatorial bastards go? And, really, does anyone want to give the right to decide to use torture to the type of person who would be willing to commit or condone the act? The potential for abuse is just too great.
Of course, the question of just what torture consists of still needs to be addressed. There is a need to extract information, there is a need to extract valid confessions, and (at least I think so) there is a need to punish lawbreaking. Somewhere between breakfast in bed at a five-star hotel and slow flaying there is a point where torture starts. Too many of the idiots who have posted on this topic seem to think that if the breakfast has marmalade instead of strawberry jam, that line has been crossed. I think that those bleeding heart idiots have contributed greatly to the lawlessness of modern society. But that's another topic.
So, no. The state should not use torture, neither internationally nor internally. And the same should (and already does) apply to the citizens. However, what an individual is willing to do for his family is not bounded by the law. Both sides in this argument have ignored that distinction. A person may be willing to break the law, even a law that he agrees with, for the sake of a family member. I tried to make this point earlier with the example of perjury. As for me, if by your pain I can save my loved ones, then you will suffer even if I eventually have to fry for it.
Hamilton understood the nature of man and the reason for government, Jefferson did not. So did Madison, but that is not pertinent here. Sorry -- brain fart.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?