Obviously, most people will say that they are largely against torture, but when given the choice between torturing one who is most likely guilty or risking the lives of thousands, I'm sure the decision is pretty obvious. Of course, it would only be necessary in only the most extreme circumstances, but by doing so to even only a few, this would intimidate other terrorists who fear the same could happen to them. I find that film that focuses on one instance when dealing with a large topic, such as torture, is often not very effective. In this case, the viewer is made to sypathize with the man who is unjustly tortured, and of course, no one would ever wish that upon someone. However, what the film fails to demonstrate is the fact that the intimidation that the threat of torture poses to a terrorist is worth the trade off. Of course, none of us knows the criteria needed for a suspected terrorist to be tortured, but I think the film takes a leap that could possibly be over the top. This may appear to be a very utilitarianistic way of looking at things, but I think one would be hard pressed to say overall, torturing a very select few is not worth the countless lives that could potentially be saved.
There was an article in the March New Yorker that was written to show how effective torture was in preventing the bombing of a British Airliner. It was written by someone in the Bush administration. Every fact he gives has been disproved by Scotland Yard and MI5. Good post
ReplyDelete