|
What do others think of that. Once again, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the details. "There will be no exceptions".
What if a bomb was going to go off in your nation, possibly nuclear or chemical, killing thousands, and you had someone in custody who knew where it was, but wouldn't tell you. Would you torture them to find out? Even if not, would that be such a bad thing to do? Is the torture of one criminal worth the lives of thousands of innocents? I do not feel that we can answer those questions, and would not condemn someone for choosing to save those lives.
What if the US had caught a 9/11 hijacker before the event, wuld they be justified in torturing that one person to prevent many of the deaths (maybe shoot down the planes, or stop the other hijackers from boarding)? I would find it hard to give a blanket no.
If it was worded "only in extreme cases, sanctioned internationally" or something like that, then I would agree. But as it stands, I think there may be a very few instances where torture is the lesser of two evils. However, I understand the needs to curb it greatly, since it can be so easily and brutally abused. Nethertheless, with the threat of torture, it may never need to be used anyway. I fear for the effect on terrorism is all nations have to abide strictly to this.
__________________
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
|
