Monday, February 06, 2017

Morally, Can We Ignore 'The Ticking Bomb Scenario'?

Sir,
I welcome that our leader Paul Nuttall has not shied away from the waterboarding debate.Whatever views one may hold about Trump, one can at least admire his honesty talking openly about taboo subjects. It is clear to me that there must be some intermediate stage in the interrogation of terrorist suspects, between on the one hand, using Gestapo methods and on the other legislating to allow the suspect three meals a day, eight hours sleep and access to a TV for relaxation. Best that this intermediate stage be the subject of legal regulation, based on the primary need to prevent civilian casualties, rather that left to individuals to decide for themselves.The jurist Alan Dershowitz puts forward the “ticking bomb scenario”. In this scenario, a suspect is in custody who knows the whereabouts of a bomb that will soon explode killing large numbers of innocent people. In that case, we should balance the rights of the suspect against the need to stop maybe hundreds of innocent people being killed or maimed.There is clearly a need for “enhanced interrogation” in this situation, and it is for us to decide where the line should be drawn.
Respectfully, Dr. Raymond Shamash PC UKIP Hendon 2015.

Amnesty International and similar would naturally 'seize the moral high ground' and never accede to 'The Ticking Bomb Scenario' at all. 
The deaths of hundreds would be quite acceptable fallout for their philosophy.
The problem is that allowing your government to hold such powers is dangerous in the extreme. Happily, Paul grasps the complexities of this horrendous, social dilemma.