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.
