Future Man wrote:HGervais wrote:Future Man wrote:Do you think Truman should have been labeled a war criminal?
The bombing of Japan is an entirely different set of circumstances and anyone with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that.
What distinctions are you making? Was the potential for loss of American lives--civilians at that--no more dire post 9-11 than in the latter days of WWII?HGervais wrote:
The thing your side cannot point to, no matter how much the pr campaign tries to sell everyone on it, is that torture produces anything of substance that could not be gotten using other methods. All torture produces is information that the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear so that they will stop hurting them. The ticking time bomb scenario is fantasy.
Should all the memos come out or are you content with only half of the argument being on the table?
After WWII we executed Japanese interrogators who water-boarded our servicemen. If attempting to prevent a nuclear attack is a viable excuse for using torture then surely those Japanese interrogators should have been aquitted. If they had tortured the right servicemen and got him to answer the right questions ... truthfully - thousands and thousands of human lives might have been saved. Or has the law changed? Have circumstances changed? Who gets to say when they do? Do we get to change the rules when we're the ones waterboarding? Maybe we do. Maybe things are different. Perhaps we should have some kind of a meeting where we allow both sides to make their case. Have this meeting run by a respected juror who we agree will be fair - and if required he can drop all charges or mete out a suitable punishment if someone is deemed to be guilty of something..