Two scientists quietly revolutionising the study and practice of interrogation

Re:Two scientists quietly revolutionising the study and prac... by nradov on Friday October 13, 2017 @10:41AM (#15466096)

Technically torture of suspected terrorists wasn't a violation of the Geneva conventions because they aren't covered by the Third Geneva Convention and the USA never ratified Additional Protocol I.

(Personally I think torture is always wrong, I just want to make sure the legal issue is clear.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Two scientists quietly revolutionising the study and prac... by KGIII on Friday October 13, 2017 @09:44PM (#15470231)

I've been thinking about that since a comment I made a while back. It was made here in response to an article about the CIA black sites.

In that comment, I said torture was unacceptable and more so when it was done in my name.

I have since wavered on this as I've considered some proposed hypotheticals. I've decided, at least for now, that it may not always be wrong but that it is always abhorrent.

Hypothetically, such a situation could exist where it is the right choice but it is still reprehensible. The whole WMD thing and saving a city? Yeah, I guess it's the right choice but it's still abhorrent. If I had every reason to believe the information could be extracted, I'd do the torturing myself.

In the end, I'd hope that I'd be more unhappy that I was forced to do so than I was unhappy that I did so. I imagine it would bother me for the rest of my life, but I'd accept that burden.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Two scientists quietly revolutionising the study and prac... by emmelaich on Friday October 13, 2017 @09:02PM (#15470132)

Indeed.

Two other points.

1. Our moral behaviour should be much better than the Geneva convention.

2. You are not bound by the Geneva convention if your opponent is not.

[ Parent | on HN ]