Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Alan Dershowtz'.
Found 1 result
-
I've always assumed that the "correct" stance about torture is, "Make it illegal under all circumstances, and if you do it, be prepared to pay the price if you're caught." Alan Dershowitz once said: Jan 22, 2002: "Want to Torture? Get a Warrant" by Alan M Dershowitz on sfgate.com In this editorial, Dershowitz advocates torture using clean needles shoved under people's fingernails to produce excruciating pain in a "ticking-time bomb scenario," which everyone dismissed as being nearly impossible. Well ... "NYC Bombing Suspect Nabbed, Charged in Shootout with Cops" by Andrew Wyrich, Tariq Zehwei, and John Bacon on usatoday.com This is pretty damned close to being a ticking-time bomb scenario. So, is Dershowitz right, or not? Should we be able to torture this man to extract information? Or do we treat him humanely? Do we make it absolutely illegal to torture people? If so, do we assign a scapegoat from the CIA to "break the law" by doing it illegally? Or do we come right out and say, "You won't be killed, but you're going to experience pain like you never thought was possible?" What if they we don't torture this man, and a bomb goes off in Times Square in two days, killing 200 people, all because we didn't have proper intelligence that we could have otherwise extracted? See how I used "they" in the preceding paragraph before I caught myself? It isn't they; it's "we." It's so easy to take a holier-than-thou stance regarding torture; it's a lot tougher when reality stares you in the face. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here, but the moral implications are tremendous.
