Suchergebnisse

Sanford Levinson explores the controversy in the US following the terrorist attacks of September 11 (2001) & the resulting war on terrorism -- whether it is legitimate to torture suspected terrorists in order to gain information that would help prevent future terrorist actions. The debate includes the appropriateness of "rendering" uncooperative suspects to less fastidious allies, where torture may be practiced, & the use of measures just short of torture to get information from hardened al Qaeda operatives. Possible responses to the obvious fact that torture & other degrading acts are happening could be any of the following: (1) denial of the efficacy of torture &, therefore, prohibition of it; (2) acceptance of torture as necessary; (3) acceptance of torture as a behavior that is only occasionally justified; or (4) denial that torture is happening. Alan Dershowitz's suggestion for requiring the state to obtain a "torture warrant" is explored. Arguments are made that the US cannot afford to adopt the tactics of its enemy, & its position of world leadership even more emphatically requires the rejection of torture in any circumstances. Henry Shue responds that if the world's lone superpower, with its high technology weapons, cannot avoid torture, then other countries are even more justified in resuming that practice. Even the prevention of another loss like that of the World Trade Center & thousands of lives, could not justify the degraded moral world that the people who were saved would inherit. Richard H. Weisberg condemns the argument concerning torture, asserting that the practice is wrong under any circumstances, & the mere discussion of it is a potential road map for the unacceptable. Levinson replies that it is better to have the argument over torture in public, rather than to ignore the fact that torture is happening. L. A. Hoffman