So be it... I'm a partisan liberal hypocrite because I don't believe in torture.
Well let localize the question for you as you like, and see what comes out.
Say your 8 year old kid gets grabbed off the street by a street gang. You even see the abduction, and you know that it is this particular gang that grabbed your kid. You are very familiar with this imaginary gang. This imaginary gang is known to take kids off the street, and rape them repeatedly for 3-4 hours, with the rape always beginning within 30 minutes of the kidnapping (after other gang members have gathered), and the rape occurring within 1 block of the kidnap. Immediately after you find your kid has been taken, you stumble into two of the members of the gang (they're known members of the gang), and you overhear them say they are on their way to the nearby rape destination. They've been cell phoned from other members that an 8 year old has been caught, and they are off to commit the rape with the other gang members. You hear them say this, and put two and two together. You're a police officer, so you grab them and take them to the police station that is one minute away, and put them in the solitary interrogation room. Say you are 99% sure your ability to torture them could extract the location of the to be committed rape within 15 minutes, and allow you to arrive the location before the 30 minute deadline for the horrible activity to begin, and prevent your kid from getting raped.
What would you do?
In brief, if you are virtually 100% sure that torturing someone on their way to rape your child can prevent your child from being raped, do you torture them and prevent the rape, or do you stick with your ideal moral values and let your child get raped?
I'm not saying this question has anything to do with US systemic torture. Rather, it has to do with the black and white blanket opposition to torture in all cases. |
