Tags
Galileo, Geneva Convention, Guantanamo, Inquisition, Irak, Jean Moulin, John McCain, President Trump, Torture
Of course it does – some of the time, and, I would guess, often. Sometimes the mere threat of it is enough; witness Galileo. When it doesn’t work, the poor bastard becomes a hero : France’s champion French Resistant, Jean Moulin, or – presumably – John McCain in Vietnam. The Catholic Inquisition continued to use it, not only because it punished heretics and witches who deserved the pain and punishment anyhow, before they suffered the ultimate torture of being burned alive at the stake, but because it forced them to renounce their “errors” and provided the Church with the names of other “criminals”. The Americans in Irak and Guantanamo, the French in Algeria, the Russians and Germans in World War 2, and probably every other nation at war or under threat, found that it was, and is, a precious provider of vital information.
It works. But should we allow it to be used ? The Geneva Convention says no. The Law says no. Fundamental human decency says no. But faced with the credible situation of suffering or death threatened to loved ones unless the prisoner, already without fingernails if not fingers, spills the beans, it is hard to blame him for giving in.
The question is not whether it works, or even whether it is legal. It is an abomination such that having a President who publicly condones it, has itself become more than civilized citizens can stand.
RIDENDA RELIGIO
FoP
Torture
Precious ?provider?? of vital??? Information.
Infallibility belongs limitedly to Frank I, not to you.
To be fair, you’ve not claimed infallibility; however…
LikeLike
Would advance information from terrorist “providers” not have been “precious”, indeed “vital”, if it could have been used to prevent the mass-murder of 3000 people on 9/11 ? . I may not be infallible, but that seems to me to be a fair enough question with perfectly accurate terms. More difficult to accept, but we must, is the statement – even then – that torture is inhuman. We are back to Moral Theology’s old question : Does the end justify the means ?
LikeLike
G’day there,FoP
Thanks.
We both know “Double effect ” issues in Moral Theology are based in ethical conundrums.
Similar questions underlie anti-torture conventions.
I had expected those international guides to be more in evidence in
your “DOES TORTURE WORK?”
The Trump is already showing limited knowledge of anything outside his direct experience and values: executive orders can be subject to judicial review. Your “Blindfaithblindfolly”, I predict, has a very long life-expectancy. So long as your term exceeds his.
The USA is providing fertile topics for pundits everywhere, but my circumstances (health included) preclude further commenting.
On that note, for an unknown period, I must retire from “blindfaith”.
Goodonya mate!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ll always be welcome, mate, to comment whenever you feel like it and feel up to it. Pax et sanitas tibi.
LikeLike
P et B
LikeLike
Torture never works. It may get out some words from the tortured person, who is going to reply the questions not with the truth but with what the tortures want to hear. As such often many other innocent people became victims of an intolerable and unjustified system.
LikeLike
” Never say ‘Never’ ” may be a cliché, but it is still good advice : one would need only one exception to show that … sometimes torture works. This said, I’m sure we agree that nothing good can be said about torture, and nothing can ever justify it.
LikeLike