Quote:
Originally posted by CamB
I'll put it another way - better to foster a world in which both the terrorist attacks and the methods tabs originally posted become considered to be globally unacceptable. We're not in this world now - I realise that - but I don't see why brutal tactics alone are going to solve that.
Maybe I'm too optimistic?
Either way, for you to consider it acceptable for any or all of "Torture, assination, violation of Civil Rights (Privacy laws in paticular), Invasion, covert operations, consfication of assets" either in the US or perpetrated against other nations, then you must consider it acceptable for other nations to act in the same way.
The potential end result of this is that only the biggest guy wins. Fine for you - you're the biggest guy. Total friggin crap for everyone else.
|
The world you're describing would be nice, but is never going to happen.
If a US citizen was about to set off, say, a dirty bomb in Christchurch, then I wouldn't be terribly upset if the NZ authorities used brutal methods on him.
This all assumes there are no equally effective legal and humane alternatives.
I'm not sure I approach this issue as a moral question, or as a liberal-conservative question. I feel more pragmatic about this. Widespread use of "extralegal" methods is, I think, simply ineffective and counterproductive. Then again, absolutely ruling out any use of extralegal methods, ever, no matter what circumstances, seems unrealistic.