Tweet
I have been very much against the use of torture in order to gain confessions in places like Guantanamo bay believing that they violate the basic liberties which the western world has been built upon. I still believe this, however, I find myself questioning this belief in certain limited circumstances.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda Mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, recently made an open confession in court that he was indeed responsible for plotting 9/11 from start to finish as well as 30 other major terrorist attacks. Most of which were before 9/11 but some of which were after 9/11. the vast majority of the post 9/11 plots were blocked and defeated by an international effort to stop terrorist attacks before they happened. Based upon what we know it is prudent to believe that most of those attacks would have been prevented even without any new information from prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but some of them likely were stopped, or at least the people attempting to stop them made great headway, due to information gained in Guantanamo Bay. Some of that information possibly, maybe even likely, came from the torture or at least unethical treatment of terrorist suspects.
I wonder how many lives must an act of torture save before we consider it an acceptable trade off. We know that
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & Al Qaeda plotted to attack targets across Britain including Heathrow airport, Big Ben and Canary Wharf. It is known that these attacks were stopped though at this time we do not know if information gained at Guantanamo Bay stopped them though it is reasonable to suspect that it played a part.
The list of stopped terrorist attacks is long... The Muslim plot to destroy the Vatican was prevented, the Muslim plot to attack allied ships at the British colony of Gibraltar was stopped, the Muslim plot to attack Los Angles International Airport (LAX) was prevented, as were numerous others. Most of that can be chalked up to good police work, incompetitant terrorists, and other factors but a certain percentage might have been prevented due to intelligence gained by unsavory methods such as those used by the Bush administration or by allied nations such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I wonder morally is this acceptable? Is it better to save lives and prevent terrorist attacks using information gained by torture or is it better to trust solid western values and hope that they are enough? What say you?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda Mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, recently made an open confession in court that he was indeed responsible for plotting 9/11 from start to finish as well as 30 other major terrorist attacks. Most of which were before 9/11 but some of which were after 9/11. the vast majority of the post 9/11 plots were blocked and defeated by an international effort to stop terrorist attacks before they happened. Based upon what we know it is prudent to believe that most of those attacks would have been prevented even without any new information from prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but some of them likely were stopped, or at least the people attempting to stop them made great headway, due to information gained in Guantanamo Bay. Some of that information possibly, maybe even likely, came from the torture or at least unethical treatment of terrorist suspects.
I wonder how many lives must an act of torture save before we consider it an acceptable trade off. We know that
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & Al Qaeda plotted to attack targets across Britain including Heathrow airport, Big Ben and Canary Wharf. It is known that these attacks were stopped though at this time we do not know if information gained at Guantanamo Bay stopped them though it is reasonable to suspect that it played a part.
The list of stopped terrorist attacks is long... The Muslim plot to destroy the Vatican was prevented, the Muslim plot to attack allied ships at the British colony of Gibraltar was stopped, the Muslim plot to attack Los Angles International Airport (LAX) was prevented, as were numerous others. Most of that can be chalked up to good police work, incompetitant terrorists, and other factors but a certain percentage might have been prevented due to intelligence gained by unsavory methods such as those used by the Bush administration or by allied nations such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I wonder morally is this acceptable? Is it better to save lives and prevent terrorist attacks using information gained by torture or is it better to trust solid western values and hope that they are enough? What say you?
Comment