| Topic: | 'UK Lives Saved by Waterboarding' | |
| Posted by: | Francis Rowe | |
| Date/Time: | 09/11/10 08:38:00 |
| Dubya is currently plugging his memoirs which whatever you think of the man are likely to be an interesting read. He claims there were three cases of waterboarding that provided intelligence that stopped attacks on Heathrow, Canary Wharf and the American Embassy in London. Here's the question. You work for your country's security services. You have been given responsibility for question a suspect. You have reliable intelligence that he has details of a major attack about to happen on heavily populated area which will kill a large number of people. He tells you he will not answer any question until his lawyer is present. Do you? a) Stop questioning the suspect and allow him to call a lawyer as you think waterboarding is a form of torture and using it would reduce you to his level. Argue that any deaths that occur were unavoidable and not your responsibility. b) Waterboard the suspect because you feel that you have a moral responsibility to do what you can even if it means breaking the law. You know it is an effective form of interrogation. In ethical terms you would argue that waterboarding does no physical damage to the suspect and he will be absolutely fine a minute or so after the process which when weighed against the potential loss of life gives you no option but to do it. |