Their Argument For Torture: It has saved millions of lives.

Am I the only one that finds this argument made by torture supporters amusing?

Let's assume we take Big Dick's argument at face value. Okay, you've got a ticking time bomb. You've got a terrorist who has some information that you need. So you torture him and get the information and save - let's be generous - you save 10 million people from certain death. Ergo, what you did is not wrong or illegal because it saves lives. For arguments sake, let's just pretend that this situation occurred.

Dick is being hailed a hero and savior of millions.

So here I am, looking at Big Dick and thinking to myself, "Hey, I want to make a difference in America too, damn it."

So I get in my car and drive to my local bank. I pull out a gun, rob everyone in the bank (for the sake of argument lets assume those at the bank are all well off). The money is FDIC insured so no real loss to people who have accounts there. (Also ignore the fact that banks don't carry that much cash on hand. I could also be committing a Ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff.)

So now let's assume I've gotten away with roughly 20 million dollars. Now, I'm an altruistic person so I give every penny of the money away. I give that money to feed children who would otherwise die of starvation without my generous donation. Let's say I save an equal amount of children that Dick saved by torture - 10 million.

In the end, does it matter that my illegal activities saved lives? Hell no. I'm going to the slammer and rightfully so. I broke the damn law. Sure, if I didn't act 10 million children would have died, and money can always be regained (or in the case of our government: printed and inflated). Sure, the people I robbed might be a bit shaken up, but let's pretend that I was REALLY nice and even apologized and told them what I was going to do with the money. So maybe it wasn't as bad as a normal robbery, as they knew I had altruistic motives.

The argument does not hold water. Since when did the law ever take into consideration motivation behind criminal behavior? That is for the sentencing. You're still going to be prosecuted and rightfully so.

This is what irks me the most about it all. It's not as if I really care what happens to some obvious terrorist, on an emotional level. They're bastards, to say the least. What really pisses me off is the cost and illegality of doing it: we lose allies abroad, and turn moderate Muslims against us for little to no yield. Hell, I'm even willing to admit that if you torture someone over 180 times you might eventually get something useful. Of course, taking that long to torture someone isn't going to help you in a ticking time bomb situation, which is the primary scenario used to justify it in the first place... meaning that even the one wobbly leg that the whole argument stands on doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I am angered now over the fact that it is clear that Obama (who outside of a handful of issues is doing a good job) is politicizing the justice department. It does not matter how politically inconvenient it is to prosecute someone. If we are a nation of laws, then damn it, those laws apply to everyone equally. You do not get a pass based on circumstance or situation. We have three branches of government for a reason, not two, and if anything one thing is clear from all this: the judicial branch of government has been horribly crippled. So much for checks and balances.

Do Republicans think they have a case against Nancy Pelosi or some other group of Democrats? Fine. Prosecute them as well. For me, this is not about revenge, it is about justice and the rule of law. Either we have it or we don't....

...and right now, it is pretty clear that we don't.

specious qualify here?:think:

The argument being presented is that torture is not wrong or illegal so long as it has a good motivation and it is successful in saving lives. The argument Dick is making is a specious argument. It sounds appealing to most who will hear it, after all... what's wrong with wanting to save lives?

The problem Dick has is not the fact that he was (according to him) trying to save lives, it is the fact that torture (and specifically water boarding) is illegal and a prosecutable crime. His motivations and the results don't mean anything.

My argument is also specious because it takes Dick's argument, but takes it out of its fear-based context. Anyone who hears my argument is obviously going to roll their eyes and exclaim, "Of course it's wrong and illegal!" Yet, in the end, what I did was no less illegal than what Dick claims he was doing and accomplished. It uses the same justifications he uses for his own actions.

So yes, the whole argument is specious. The law does not really care about the motivation behind the law breaking. If you break the law, you broke the law. I see nothing wrong with a judge taking an individuals motivations into consideration during sentencing (damn those empathetic judges to hell!). However, when a crime is broken it just can't be ignored no matter the individual or the reason behind it.

I am also aware that this puts me squarely at odds with Robin Hood, and on the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham. :P

:hi:

I'm sure the guy who was out of work and robbed that service station so he could buy food for his little girl (who he had with him during the robbery) said the same thing. I also doubt very much that he's home free right now either!

So, we have an evil pervert in custody and he has planted a ticking time bomb some where in NY city. Torture has not worked, however he has agreed to give up the location only after he is allowed to sodomize your 3 year old grandson. Just as likely what if.

Tiger attacks
Meteor showers striking major metropolitan centers
the heart break of psoriasis
The return of dinosaurs
Satan walking the Earth