--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> used to gather 'high value' intelligence in
> particular cases.
>
> That's the example that, for instance, Scalia and
> Hillary bring out: if
> it can prevent an imminent attack.
[WS:] The problem with that argument, Jordan, is that it is a logical fallacy devised to ex post facto justify the practice. The logical fallacy lies in the efact that you almost never know beforehand whether anyone has information preventing imminent attack, and if you do - you do not need to torture the guy, you already know enough to prevent that attack.
In order for torture to work as a preventive measure, you would need to use it on a lot of people whom you suspect of possibly having such information. This, however, is not a publicly admissible position of the leadership, or for that matter supreme court justice, of a supposedly democratic state. They cannot say "let's torture a buch of brown-skinned people and see what we can scare up" and get away with it. Instead they need to use a logical fallacy in which the future and unknown at the time of action benefit is a "probable cause" and justification for thay action. It is the same as a cop searching your house to see what incriminating evidence he can find there and then justifying that as a crime stopping measure - I do not think this would stand in this country, even in Scalia's court.
Trolls like Scalia know that darn well, since they are supposed to be trained in logical reasoning and legal casuistry. The fact that they are using such fallacies to defend their support of torture suggets that they are despicapble, intellectually dishonest pieces of shit servile to Bush administration.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping