Every once in a while I have an idea for a compromise on some issue or another that as far as I know should give each side what they want. Sometimes I know power politics gets in the way of enacting these compromises, but other times I don’t even see the idea discussed. I don’t know why they don’t catch on. Here is another example of a potential compromise.
There are those so concerned with terrorist activity that they will even go so far as endorsing torture to extract secrets from captured terrorists. Others are dead set against the use of torture. I hope that both sides will see the utility in my proposed compromise:
Torture should only be used under the following conditions: First, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of proposed torture is truly guilty of something heinous enough to deserve it (such as torturing others). Simply holding information that may be vital is not enough. One should not be obligated to aid us. An actual act must have been committed. Second, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient actually has the information sought after. We should never torture in vain, and there should always be a way out for the recipient by giving us what we want, something denied to those who truly don’t know anything. Third, the information desired must be of such an important nature that torture is warranted, and it must be determined that we are unlikely to get the information any other way. Fourth, there must be some sort of oversight. No one person should ever make these decisions. A second opinion of high authority is needed.
I think these are reasonable restrictions. I don’t believe I would be for torture without them. The question is, would those of you against torture support it under the conditions I have laid out, or are there further concerns I haven’t addressed? Would those of you in support of torture be willing to adhere to these restrictions, or are they too cumbersome?
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.