Moral dilemma.

by expatbrit 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  Imagine you are the head of the security services in your city. Somewhere in your city is a bomb. It is timed to explode sometime in the next 24 hours, very probably in a crowded area. Dozens, maybe hundreds, could be killed or injured. The bomb has been planted by a terrorist organisation that supports a repressive regime in the developing world, that your own government condemns for its human rights violations.

  Now here's the good news. One of the terrorists is in custody. She knows where the bomb is. Unfortunately, she isn't talking, and can't be persuaded to talk by ordinary means. She wont be hypnotised, and you don't have available drugs to help loosen her tongue.

  However, the interogators tell you that they are convinced that with a sufficient amount of brutal persuasion of a physical nature, her resistance will be broken and she will talk. In other words, they want to use torture.

  Time is running out. The bomb is out there.

  Do you authorise the use of torture?

  Expatbrit
• 

  Elsewhere

  I would never use physical torture... simply because it does not work as well as most people think. The more a person is tortured, the more resolved a person is to keep quiet. Oppression breads resistance... even to the very end.

  There are other, psychological, means to get the information you need.

  Edited by - Elsewhere on 20 January 2003 21:47:1
• 

  pr_capone

  Do whatever is neccesary.
• 

  Warrigal

  You could tie her to a chair and make her sit through hours and hours of the Watchtower Study (catechism) until she spilled the beans. What better form of psychological torture?? Ok, so a 3 day District Convention would work too.

  Warrigal
• 

  OUTLAW

  I`ll need ten minutes and a pair of pliars...OUTLAW
• 

  Blueblades

  I heard this discussed on a radio show some time ago.There was no conclusion to the question.Good cop bad cop won't work.Does everyone have a price.Can family be used against her,can torture,is it really a moral dilemma when it comes to letting others die or saving them at all cost.Is all fair in love and war?Has everything in the book been tried before.

  Where on earth is the intelligence agency? Anyway its only a moral dilemma if you believe it to be.Can she hold out or will she give in? Don't do anything at all ,ask her nice.Give her amnesty,a cigarette, a drink, safe house. Does she have a cause that she is willing to die for? A belief system that she is willing to die for.Has she been trained to accept and endure torture.

  ON and ON round and round we go.Do we really know if this situation has been already dealth with in the past .Whats your answer?What would I do if I had that responsibility? Whatever it takes to save the lives of the many.If it failed then we all lose our lives.If it works lives are saved.

  Really though I wouldn't want to be the one in that situation on either side. Blueblades
• 

  BATHORY

  Dude, this is a no brainer !

  You said, she IS a terrorist right.

  Secondly she KNOWS where the explosives are right.

  She is obviously involved in the conspiracy.

  She has broken several felony's already, she has lost her HUMAN rights as i see it without doubt.

  This being the case that she has NO rights, do with her as you please with the view of public safety.

  I cant see how anyone could disagree.

  BUT, if she was only suspected of the above, well you must act within the rights she has in that domain, but even then if it was me i would do what it takes to get this info out of her, certainly not withstanding torture.

  Sheez, imagine your family and kids were blown up by it , and you found out that you ( as in the security guy or cop ) had her there but couldnt justify the means of extracting that info from her out of fear that you would betray her rights or that you were a soft cock, Imagine that. That would be infinately more criminal.

  That security guy or cop should change proffesions if you cant deal with that.

  Sorry, but what a stupid question this is.

  As a parallel i would say that if your son got kidnapped, and you had the DEFINITE kidnapper there with you, and you had say 1 hour to get the location of her before the kid dies, would you torture her for that info ?

  Damb i would START by ripping rusted barbwire out of her orefices and then slowly get to the nastier stuff.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Torture has actually proven to produce unreliable results in interrogation. It does one of two things, reenforces the resolve of the individual being tortured (to a point at least) and the tortured person gives unreliable info in order to stop the pain.

  A little sodium penethal and a phone book might not be a bad idea in this situation.

  NYPD Blues, they use just enough force without going over the line. It produces results.

  Israelis have been pretty good at getting reliable info without too much violence. (Mind you I don't consider forcing someone to kneel on cement for a while, or sit in an uncomfortable position, or deny sleep for a few days torture. I've been through all that and worse.
• 

  RubaDub

  I would tie her to the chair and have someone begin reading the Babylon book to her. By the time they get to page 300 or so, she'll talk like a parrot.
• 

  searcher

  This is where the problem always lies. If the person in cutody IS a terrorist and IS involved in the plot, then that person and the security services automaticaly have different moral code.

  After all, the cop would not go and plant a bomb.

  Therefore the only descission to make is WHOSE moral code to work to.

  In my opinion the moral code should be defined by the ones who instigates the action (the terrorists), they have set the parrameters and so should have no protection of the targets moral code.After all, by taking that action they are sending a statement that they disagree with that code.

  searcher.