I have been in a few fights where thier are multiple people. You don't get to play that discrimination game. In that sort of field anyone on the opposite side is guilty if they show ANYTHING that can be interpreted as a threat. You do not have time to sit there and debate. In fact in town many times in a fight that people who don't want involved are present either stand perfectly still or lay down. Any action interpretable as a threat will get you nailed. You don't get the time to guess and play.
I treat this the same way. The people who are attacking our troops. They are on the other side. And are performing an action that can be a threat in most instances. Correct? If I recall right it was mentioned in this thread that that is where the torture victims are ideally caught. Thus they have already shown that they are part of the group.. and part of the threat. Now you have reason to suspect another attack. And reason to suspect that this guy may know of the attack. So why not ask? It may prevent future harm of your own. And the only one involved is already shown to be a threat/danger. Your goal is to disarm it. That means that torture can be used as selfdefense.
No you don't go and grab a random innocent to torture. But if you catch a battlefield participant that has a good chance of knowing when that next attack will happen, well that is when torture may be a viable option.
Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.Until peace is declared the threat of violence is there. Protect is to prevent. Thus selfdefense is a preemptive action. Now torture is a form of preventive action used on a person to protect against future threats. That right there qualifies it in many ways to be selfdefense of a form.Originally Posted by protect
The reasonable bit is the only bit that is questionable. Some would definately say that torture is an unreasonable act. However, others can reason it. That I will stay away from, since I feel that the act of torture is distastful to say the lest.
Keep in mind I am not argueing morals or right and wrong here. I am argueing straight words. The dictionary from all the words I have looked up involved has nothing saying that torture under the right cirucumstances can not be a form of selfdefense. And since the dictionary defines our language I can not find a way to argue that it isn't, unless I have woefully overlooked a word and its meaning. The worst part about the definition is that it has the word "reasonably" in it. Which is a dang pain. Reasonably is not easily defined or bound.
EDIT-
While I am on words we are all on the same base when understanding torture, right? Torture is another of those words that can vary from individual to individual due to the way it is defined.
Just in case-
As I said I don't personally think of it as being 'right' persay, however, once again I see nothing banning it from the realm of being a possible tool of selfdefense.
