Reply #57: right here

[Two Americas]

Hard to tell what you are saying. You are arguing both sides of the issue.

The OP asked "Would torture be acceptable if it prevented something?"

Your answer: "yes."

You then qualified it with these statements:

- "Only under the most extreme hypothetical situation..."

- "But then the torturer would have to face the consequences..."

You even say that if what the torturer did was later proved to be right, he could be pardoned.

Granted, other statement you made contradict what you are saying in the post to which I responded. So who knows where you stand?

But there is nothing ambiguous about this:

Question "is torture ever acceptable?"

Your answer: "yes."

Hence, I said "you are defending torture." I also said that a government that authorized torture is unlikely to prosecute torture, That doesn't preclude a subsequent regime prosecuting torture, and your examples of rogue and illegal actions by individuals being prosecuted is not relevant. Although you do say that even if they broke the law they could be pardoned if "what they did was right."

You are defending torture.



...