Pacific Views
You've been had. You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok. - Malcolm X
|
| Pacific ViewsYou've been had. You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok. - Malcolm X |
Two Australian academics are about to publish a paper suggesting that torture be made legal. And, no, they are not kidding.
According to a report in The Age, Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke say that torture is a 'morally defensible' interrogation method, even if it causes the death of innocent people. (Bagaric, incidentally, is the head of Deakin's law school.) Their forthcoming paper says that if many lives are in danger, torturing a suspect is acceptable, even if that person is tortured to death.
Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected to be criticised for his views, particularly on torturing innocent people.
"Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer," said Professor Bagaric, who has been head of Deakin's law school for more than two years.
"But in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they're not directly involved in creating that threat doesn't mean they can wash their hands of responsibility."
Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."
He went on: "Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm, if that didn't work, you would escalate it.
"And if that unfortunately resulted in an innocent person being killed, in those circumstances that would be justified. I think as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
We're stunned.
Via Road to Surfdom.
Posted by Magpie at May 16, 2005 04:35 PM | Human Rights | Technorati links |I think as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate
It seems that we are tolerant of thousands being killed to save none.
Posted by: Boss Tweed at May 16, 2005 06:17 PMWhen did professors of law become arbiters of morals?
Seriously... they're supposed to concern themselves with questions of law. This doesn't give them any special understanding of the moral or even ethical implications of a given issue.
Posted by: Malacandra at May 16, 2005 06:24 PMSee, now this is exactly the kind of *&^%ing thing I meant. Who ARE these *&^%ing people and how do they get like this?
Posted by: natasha at May 17, 2005 12:12 AMhaven't we heard this argument: "Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm, if that didn't work, you would escalate it." before?
Which, of course, is vacuous(sic) in so many ways, not the least of which is that everyone knows(tm) that to really torture someone well, you're going to have to work them over for hours if not days...which, except in hollywood, would preclude them from telling anything useful before the time was up.
Oh--and the whole "us air defence/faa meltdown" that should have prevented all but the first plane (impact)anyway.
And that we're talking about suicide bombers--you know, people who are willing to die for their cause: They're usually pretty much ready to cry the first time you give them a purple-nurple.
Oh, and wait, I could go on and on and on but all the @#$#% straw blew away in the wind.
Posted by: fred at May 17, 2005 02:13 PMOne (first-year law school) principle that these guys and Alan Dershowitz and his 'torture warrants' forget is the necessity defense. If one of these 'ticking time bomb' scenarios ever happened in real life (and they never have) someone could attempt to torture information out of the person and cite the circumstances as a legal defense. Again, this situation has never happened and the odds against it are prohibitive (someone already in custody with vital information, and the authorities know that he has this information, but they don't even clue what it is). Taking this out of a common law defense and legally allowing torture will only result in more and more prisoners being deemed torturable -- after all they COULD know something; better torture them to make sure.
They also ignore legal (and obviously moral) precedent. In Scott v. Alabama (1912, I think) the Supreme Court rejected the idea that any state could torture a suspect to make him confess. (There was no evidence other than the confession, and the jury was told how it was obtained, and they convicted anyway.) This was not done under the 5th, 6th or 14th amendments but rather on the basis of the clause in the Constitution that says all states shall have a republican form of government. In other words, torture is inherently unconstitutional and unAmerican.
Posted by: matt at May 19, 2005 07:58 AMGreat idea: "Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."". NOW he will talk, the SOB!
Posted by: Albrecht at May 19, 2005 09:13 AM