| Subject: Mercedes, the question is not about what THEY did. What would YOU do if you were the one who had to make a decision in such a situation? Same question to you, Teller |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sun, May 03, 2009 9:32:09
In reply to:
Mercedes
's message, "Yep, here I am, Jumping In!" on Sun, May 03, 2009 7:30:56
Saying "well, fortunately I'm not the one who has to make such decisions" is fine....but then, you don't have any real basis for attacking those who are making the decisions.
Let us say you have info that makes it about 99% likely that a nuclear bomb will be detonated, killing half a million people or so. That it will probably happen within 12 hours. Enough time to possibly prevent it.
You have only one person in custody who you are 99% certain knows where the bomb is. You have already tried talking to him as much as you can, with no results.
There are harsh interrogation methods, including some which you could call torture, which are highly likely to make him talk. Will he talk TRUTHFULLY? Maybe, maybe not. But it's the only method at your disposal which could even POSSIBLy save the lives of half a million people.
I know. You want to be principled. You want to say "Under no conditions whatsoever". Believe me, I'd like to say that, too.
And if I answered that in this case I WOULD torture this individual, people can ask some hard questions of me as well. Like what if we were only 50% sure that a bomb was about to go off? Or less? What if we were only 50% sure that he knew anything about it? Or less? What if the likelihood of him talking was extremely low?
And it would be hard for me to say. I know I would NOT torture if there was a mere 1% likelihood that a bomb was going to go off, if there was only a 1% likelihood that the suspect knew where it was, and the torture was only 1% likely to to get him to talk truthfully. If the numbers were all 99%, I would. In between, then it becomes really hard to say. You have to weigh out the consequences on both sides.
Torture is a terrible thing, and we should avoid it if at all possible. But that becomes the question then, just when is it NOT possible?
Oh, one more question: If, under the circumstances above (the 99% likelihood), President Obama was to approve torturing such a person to stop a bomb, would you condemn him?
And I know, there is no evidence that the previous administration was faced with such a situation either. But starting at the extremes is the best way to then work out at just what point we are right to approve, or right to condemn.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
