Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I would phrase it a bit differently. Is there a meaningful difference between intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive, who prior to being a captive, wanted and was actively seeking to take your life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect v. inflicting extreme pain on someone who wanted to take you life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect?
|
I don't understand why you are limiting this to those who were actively seeking to take a life -- it is pretty clear that we have resisted putting in place any kind of process that makes that determination of guilt prior to the act of torture. The torture being done is done based on the military suspicion, and guilt is part of what they are trying to ascertain by torture.
Even if we assume they are guilty of something, do you still see no difference between torture in captivity versus wounding or killing someone in the heat of battle? Can you discern absolutely no difference between the two you see as material to a discussion of morality?
