This seems to put more emphasis on torture as a punishment than as an information gathering tool.
Work both ways. But there still has to be objectivity.
Does torturing terrorists save more innocent lives than torturing enemy soldiers?
Not necessarily. The important factor is the motivation. Soldiers are protecting their nation. Terrorists want a place in heaven with 72 virgins or something and are willing to kill as many as they can to achieve this goal. I'm generalizing here, but their motivation is almost always both selfish and lunatic.
Also, at what point does one lose human rights?
The exact moment they lose regard for human life.
(to everybody) Btw I also wanna know your solutions.
A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
When they stop considering the rights of others (negligible or invaluable or even punishable buy cutting their throats off).
So when someone else stops recognizing human rights it becomes ok to do likewise to them? It's ok, though, because they did it first?
Originally Posted by Rasofy
Soldiers are protecting their nation.
This is overly idealistic, I think.
Terrorists want a place in heaven with 72 virgins or something and are willing to kill as many as they can to achieve this goal. I'm generalizing here, but their motivation is almost always both selfish and lunatic.
The states' motivation, while normally not lunatic, is virtually always selfish and they're willing to kill to achieve the goal.
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
than to serve and obey them. - David Hume