Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable, so long as the person does not die:
This is a really touchy subject in today's world, and is very hard to adress. All cases should be viewed individually, there is no real way to make a hard, fast, torture rulebook. As a general rule, torture should not be allowed, because it' s benefits are questionable, and it clearly violates human rights. But in some cases, torture can be justified. It will never be pretty, never be nice, never be ok, but in reality, may be the expedient that saves lives. A person should never be killed by torture, because that totally defeats the purpose of torture.
The Dilemma: A terrorist is caught on january 13th. There were plans found in his residence describing a plot to detonate a small nuclear "dirty Bomb" in a major U.S. city. His handwriting was identified on the plans, and his guilt is not in question; it is obvious he helped in plotting the attack. The problem is, the plans do not specify the attack's location, or who is involved. The attack, according to the plans, is set to happen on january 15th. The FBI investigator has 48 hours to discover the location of the bomb, and neutralize it before any american lives are lost.
The preliminary psychological profile of the terrorist shows that he is not fanatical, and is likely to be broken by torture. The FBI investigator must decide whether to torture the individual, and potentially save thousands of lives, or respect the terrorists "human rights" and potentially allow thousands of american civillians to die.
The question above is, How willing are you to allow innocent people to die for an ideal? How much does one person's life equate against a group of others? Does the intent to kill remove any human rights a person might be entitled to?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"The preliminary psychological profile of the terrorist shows that he is not fanatical, and is likely to be broken by torture."
If the terrorist is likely to be broken by torture, then he may also be broken through interrogation. That just depends on the skill and experience of the interrogater.
As to your first point, i agree with the idea that there is no defined rule to allowing torture. It should be used as a completely last resort, and even sparingly, as that.
Justine Freeman p5
Well Neil, I see your piont in your case mentioned how torture to release information may save thousands of american's lifes, but what kind of torture are you implying or what kind was used?
Personally I do not ever think pain should ever be used, its not for human beings so inflict pain.
Though I do believe in Interogation && deprevation of food, not water but food, sooner or later the terrorist may be broken and tell.
Neil, I agree with you statements made here, and your terrorism situation brings up a tough decision. Personally, I think that if a suspect may hold valuable information important to citizen's lives, then torture may be an option. However, if the information is not as urgent, then perhaps torture may be a bit too strong. But really, these things should probably be decided by a jury who must argue whether torture is acceptable.
That last comment is Max David's!
Neil Hinnant-Part three
I still agree with my statements, even after reading 1984. The story was a cautionary tale of what could happen if things are take too far, but i think that argument could be made about nearly anything. My attitude has not changed on the subject of torture.
Post a Comment