Thanks! I haven't seen (or heard of) either. Whereas I used to follow films (including documentaries) closely, I've hardly seen anything at all the last couple of years, so it's no surprise IDBM shows both are recent. I'll be sure to check them out!
The writer goes too far. Not impossible, merely highly improbable. The writer is correct though in that torture is punishment for non-cooperation in interrogation. Not that this debate has any real relevance.
The objective of the exercise is to show that Scalia's hypothetical is impossible ever to occur and so we don't need to even answer it. (This is important because he takes an affirmative answer to his question as legitimizing the use of torture. He seeks to make us all supporters of torture, and we need not be.)
Scalia asks whether a government official could smack a person in the face if the person knew where a bomb was. This question is disingenuous. He does not ask whether a government official could smack the face of a person the official merely believes to know where a hidden bomb is. This hypothetical is the reality of the situation, but the reason Scalia doesn't ask that question is because it raises the due process issue, which he wants no part of. The question then is not whether a government official may torture a terrorist but whether a government official may torture a person he believes, rightly or wrongly, to have information he wants. In other words, to answer this
( ... )
Comments 7
Taxie to the Dark Side and A Promise to the Dead
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The objective of the exercise is to show that Scalia's hypothetical is impossible ever to occur and so we don't need to even answer it. (This is important because he takes an affirmative answer to his question as legitimizing the use of torture. He seeks to make us all supporters of torture, and we need not be.)
Scalia asks whether a government official could smack a person in the face if the person knew where a bomb was. This question is disingenuous. He does not ask whether a government official could smack the face of a person the official merely believes to know where a hidden bomb is. This hypothetical is the reality of the situation, but the reason Scalia doesn't ask that question is because it raises the due process issue, which he wants no part of. The question then is not whether a government official may torture a terrorist but whether a government official may torture a person he believes, rightly or wrongly, to have information he wants. In other words, to answer this ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment