Torture 2

Verbum sapienti satis est.

A quick caveat about the "torture" post since I have received so many personal comments.

I argued it under the assumption that the choice for an American was torture of somebody they have never seen, heard of, or met vs. the peace and lives of family members. Although I like to play devil's advocate, I was not and am not arguing that torture is moral. I was playing devil's advocate, or conscience, or whatever, to admit that when forced between those two options only, many if not most Americans will take torture of somebody they don't know or will ever meet over the jeopardization of family members and loved ones.

Obviously, non-torture means of extracting information, such as the use of chemicals which release inhibitions and cause the captive to tell the truth, are not only more humane, but yield better results.

This does not change my argument that yes, I think the Geneva Convention a contrived set of rules for a very messy, often immoral, thing called war. The Geneva Conventions state that combattants dressed as non-combattants need not be treated as POWs. I agree with the opinion that the US should not be required to follow the Geneva Conventions against an opponent who does not follow the same guidelines. However, this does not mean that the US cannot and should not follow them anyway. That would bring up the moral conundrum of the American way to wage war that I have blogged about earlier.