tortur, kan det noen ganger forsvares?

[ⅵdar]

Så når bomben går i luften etterpå så sitter du med god samvittighet over å ha drept noen hundre, men du gjorde det rette der og da?

Nei, for jeg drepte aldri noen hundre.

Det var det noen andre som eventuellt gjorde.

 

Og man kan ikke vite 100% om en person har opplysninger som kan hjelpe uten å vite hvilke opplysninger vedkommende sitter på. Vet man hvilke opplysninger vedkommende sitter på, faller grunnen til å få ut informasjon bort.

 

-Bare fornuftig at en person må lide en stund for muligheten at noen skal reddes.

 

Kanskje det er fornuftig, men jeg synes det er helt umoralskt.

[co2]

Så når bomben går i luften etterpå så sitter du med god samvittighet over å ha drept noen hundre, men du gjorde det rette der og da?

Nei, for jeg drepte aldri noen hundre.

Det var det noen andre som eventuellt gjorde.

 

Og man kan ikke vite 100% om en person har opplysninger som kan hjelpe uten å vite hvilke opplysninger vedkommende sitter på. Vet man hvilke opplysninger vedkommende sitter på, faller grunnen til å få ut informasjon bort.

 

Ikke direkte, men indirekte.

[ⅵdar]

Ikke direkte, men indirekte.

Ikke direkte eller indirekte, men muligens.

[Decline]

Vil ikke si det handler om moral. Heller om hvor mye hvert enkelt menneske er verdt, og menneskerettigheter. Ingen skal behøve å gjennomgå noe slikt fordi en maktperson/organisjasjon etc. TROR man vil bli tjent med det. Selvforsvar er ok, men det "preventive" grunnlaget er rett og slett for tynt.

[Feynman]

Så når bomben går i luften etterpå så sitter du med god samvittighet over å ha drept noen hundre, men du gjorde det rette der og da?

If a nuclear bomb were about to be detonated, wouldn’t ill-treatment or even torture, even though repugnant, be justifiable if it would extract crucial information that might save thousands of lives?

 

Torture and ill-treatment are illegal and immoral and are never justified. To suggest that they might be justified in some circumstances is based on a premise that the end justifies the means. This is a rationale similar to that often used in an attempt to justify acts of terrorism.

 

It has been suggested that the use of torture could be controlled and limited to the most extreme and urgent circumstances. It has even been argued that, because torture is bound to happen, it is better that it be legalised and regulated than that it be denied or done clandestinely and that, when there is an absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives, coupled with probable cause (reasonable probability) that an individual has such information but is unwilling to reveal it, non-lethal torture by controlled means such as a sterilised needle under the finger nail to cause excruciating pain could be authorised by judicial warrant.

 

However, this and similar proposals that torture is permissible in extreme cases to prevent the imminent loss of hundreds or thousands of lives -- the “ticking time-bomb” argument -- is based on an extremely improbable and hypothetical scenario. Any would-be torturer would need to know for sure that a bomb really exists (despite the fact that no one except the terrorists have seen it), that it will explode unless it is defused, that the person being held does indeed know where the bomb is (and that it was not moved, or plans changed, when the terrorists learned he had been captured), that if he is tortured he would provide the necessary information and that it will be accurate and will enable the bomb to be defused in time, and that there is no other way to discover the bomb, and so on. Such an improbable situation cannot justify giving governments powers to license their officials to use torture or other ill-treatment. It is essential to maintain the absolute prohibition on such methods if law enforcement officials are not to be tempted to reach for them whenever other methods fail.

 

The evidence is overwhelming. States that use torture and ill-treatment use it broadly. They supplement it with other repressive measures. Amnesty International has researched torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment all over the world for decades. We have not found a single state which tortures “only once”, or only in a few extreme cases. Whenever and wherever torture and cruelty are accepted as legitimate tools of government “in extreme circumstances” they become widespread -- the means used become increasingly extreme and the circumstances in which they are used increasingly less so. Moreover, those states which use torture and ill-treatment against political opponents do not stop at these acts, but resort also to other violent and repressive measures, such as “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions, not only against detainees, but also against a wider population associated with the “enemy”. Amnesty International’s experience shows that if torture is no longer absolutely prohibited, law enforcement attitudes change. Over time, the attitude that torture and ill-treatment can be acceptable gains ground and spreads throughout the entire system, and even criminal suspects receive the same treatment as suspected terrorists.

 

Most of us would agree that in critical situations we would allow our government to take measures and assume powers which we would normally be reluctant to grant it – for example to conduct searches, cordon off an area, prohibit gatherings, impose curfews, or increase surveillance. But justifying torture in essence means that we authorise our government to take one of us and do absolutely anything with him or her – all moral boundaries are removed. Do we really want to grant our governments absolute powers of cruelty?

 

The only way to ensure security and confront terrorism is to establish and comply with a clear standard forbidding all forms of cruelty or inhumane treatment. We cannot defend what we stand for by subverting our own moral values. And we cannot counter acts of terror by armed groups with acts of terror by the state.

Endret 7. september 2005 av Feynman

[howzer]

Tortur hjelper ikke. Hvis en person ikke vet noe og blir torturert så kan han si noe som ikke er korrekt bare for å slippe videre tortur. Da sitter man igjen med mange falske spor, og man er like langt som hvis man lot være å torturere.