See our most recent Debate Digest article: Bosnia and Herzegovina membership in the EU
Argument: Even if torture should always be illegal, it is still justified in "the ticking time bomb" scenario
From Debatepedia
[
]
]Parent debate
- Debate:Torture, pro argument.
[]
]Supporting evidence
- Stephanie H. Dray. "Torture is wrong." Associated Content. September 14, 2006 - "Would I, in the infamous 'ticking time bomb' situation, be willing to torture someone to save thousands, perhaps millions of lives? Knowing that all other alternatives were exhausted, all time had run out, and the only way to save people was to torture a prisoner, would I do it? I would. And I would also expect to be charged for my crime. I might have defenses, in a court of law, for my despicable act. I might properly even be pardoned by my government. But I would have broken the law - not just of our nation, but of all nations. Our laws should always reflect our basic principles and moral values. It should never condone torture. Why? Torture is wrong."
- "What About the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario?". Evangelicals For Human Rights. Retrieved 12.4.07 - "Much ink has been spilled considering how to handle these very rare ticking bomb cases. Perhaps the most widely discussed proposal has been Alan Dershowitz’s suggestion that we permit torture only through a 'torture warrant' signed by a judge or a very high government official, such as the president himself, who would therefore bear full legal, political, and moral responsibility.[iv]
- This would certainly be better than the drift into torture without such accountability. But I think that any potential resort to torture in rare, ticking bomb cases would be better handled within the context of an outright ban. The grand moral tradition of civil disobedience, for example, specifies that there are instances in which obedience to laws must be overridden by loyalty to a higher moral obligation. These are usually unjust laws but this is not always the case. Dietrich Bonhoeffer participated in an assassination plot against Hitler but did not argue for the rewriting of moral prohibitions of political assassinations. He was prepared to let God be his judge. If a one-in-a-million instance were to emerge in which a responsible official believed that the ban on torture must be overridden as a matter of emergency response, let him do so knowing fully that he would have to answer for his action before God, law, and neighbor. This is a long way from an authorized torture regime."
[]
]Counter-argument
[]
]See also
[]
]