No worries, emotions get lost in text. I figured all the caps were used in substitution of an aroused emotional state. I pose two questions which I believe are not emotional.
Now terrorism is by definition "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". I would say that America now, because trump is pro-torture ( though he cooled his jets after his talks with Mathis), supports terrorism too. To me torturing someone would be considered a terrorist act. Now that is just personal opinion. Every country will support what it wants and thinks is for the betterment of itself. They of course never call it terrorism, they just call it doing what is right. Questions posed. 1. Would you consider torture a terrorist act and 2. If you did, would you still consider it a terrorist act if it was reinstated? These are the things I wonder. I just always see politicians and many people throwing stones in glass houses.
This is not at all saying that I am agreeing with terrorism of any country or person. I think it is all fucked up.
I realize you have used the 'official' definition of terrorism, which I think is too broad and isn't the definition an "average American" thinks when talking about terrorism today. But basing my response off the parameter of the definition supplied, here are my answers:
1) I absolutely would consider torture of an enemy for information an act of terrorism
2) I don't understand this question, are you asking if torture would be a terrorist act if the Geneva Conventions were void? Because if that is your premise then it would not be an act of terrorism because the Geneva Conventions are what make torture a violation of international law. So if they were lifted then it would no longer be "the
unlawful use of violence..."
I think I understand the implied question (and correct me if I am off base) and so I will also reply outside of the context of your definition. I think that if we torture anyone and it is unlawful then it is a war crime and should be prosecuted as such. EVEN IF the information led to the capture or prevention of terrorist or acts of terror. The law is the law and if you break it you are subject to the judicial process.
Here is a hypothetical: Say you are drunk and your completely sober friend is driving you home when he/she suddenly starts having a seizure. Do you hop behind the wheel and drive them to a hospital? OR do you wait for an ambulance? If you drive you will be charged for DWI but your friend will live. If you wait for an ambulance your friend will die but you followed the law.
*CAPITALIZATION used for emphasis...not emotion
