The German case supports my position. The justification for torture is that it saves lives. No lives were saved. It was therefore unjustified.(Original post by Thutmose-III)
I've already mentioned one, the attack on Peta Tikvah outlined by Yaacov Peri on pp 88-90 of the Gatekeepers book.
The German case already completely destroys your position such that you're forced to play games and move the goalposts. The German case shows that physical pressure can induce someone to reveal information they otherwise would not have; your position collapses.
The justification for torture by the us is that it prevents attacks on us citizens, not that it simply reveals information but that it saves lives. Yet there is no single verified case of torture saving so much as a single life. None.
There has never been a case where information obtained by torture has prevented an attack. Never. The cases cited are often from the perpetrators of torture. Never independently verified.
I'm surprised at your lack of reasoning. You're using a case where torture did not prevent a single life as proof it saves lives. That case shows torture doesn't work- not a single life was saved.
You're dealing in hypotheticals and not empirical evidence. The contrived situations which justify torture such as the ticking bomb situation simply do not exist in real life.
From GCSE to A level, it's all changing