A controversial proposal of a famous professor of law Harvard, I read some years ago. In the end I put some links and articles that have a contrary position, both from a moral standpoint, as the law of evidence (evidence) in the sense of whether it is a reliable mechanism for information.
Bill Clinton, torture advocate Alan M.
Dershowitz
http://www.libertaddigital.com/index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=34052
several years ago provoked a storm of controversy by advocating the "torture warrants" as a way to create transparency for the use of torture in terrorism cases. I argued that if ever we were in a frame of mind like "trial" in which the authorities think that an impending terror attack could only be avoided by forcing torture a captured terrorist to reveal the location of the bomb, the authorities would use in practice that method.
Although I personally oppose the use of torture, I recognize the reality that some forms of torture have been, are and will continue to be used by democracies in extreme situations, no matter what we say or what the law dictates. In an effort to limit the use of torture to those situations "trial" truly extreme, rather than let it become routine, suggested that the president or a federal judge had to take personal responsibility for ordering its use in extraordinary situations .
For suggesting this approach to the terrible choice between the evils of torture and terrorism, was condemned as a moral monster, labeled an advocate of torture and called Inquisitor.
It turns out that former President Clinton has made a similar proposal. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Clinton was asked, as someone who "has been in this position" if the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case." This was his answer:
Dershowitz
http://www.libertaddigital.com/index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=34052
several years ago provoked a storm of controversy by advocating the "torture warrants" as a way to create transparency for the use of torture in terrorism cases. I argued that if ever we were in a frame of mind like "trial" in which the authorities think that an impending terror attack could only be avoided by forcing torture a captured terrorist to reveal the location of the bomb, the authorities would use in practice that method.
Although I personally oppose the use of torture, I recognize the reality that some forms of torture have been, are and will continue to be used by democracies in extreme situations, no matter what we say or what the law dictates. In an effort to limit the use of torture to those situations "trial" truly extreme, rather than let it become routine, suggested that the president or a federal judge had to take personal responsibility for ordering its use in extraordinary situations .
For suggesting this approach to the terrible choice between the evils of torture and terrorism, was condemned as a moral monster, labeled an advocate of torture and called Inquisitor.
It turns out that former President Clinton has made a similar proposal. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Clinton was asked, as someone who "has been in this position" if the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case." This was his answer:
Look, if the president needed an option, there are all kinds of things you can do. Choose the best example, right? You captured someone you know is the assistant number two to Osama bin Laden. And you know it has launched an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the coming ... three days. And you know this guy knows. Well, it's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out to such drugs or injecting some into believing that drowned or otherwise. If you really believe that this scenario is likely to happen, let me make an alternative proposal.
We have a law here that allows no one is above the law, and does not require advance approval for secret torture disguised. Can legislate a much less permissive statute that allows the president to consider a case such as that just outlined, and after that review could be submitted even after the facts before the Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.
A Clinton asked then I was saying that "would have more responsibility for what had been done after [the facts]." He replied: "Yeah, well, the president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case by case basis and there would be some kind of review of it. "Clinton quickly added that he does not know if this scenario trial" is likely or not ", but he knew that" we were wrong about who was suspected or actual no. "Clinton summarized his views as follows:
If you really believe it is time where the only way to obtain reliable information is to get it out to shock someone or injecting a drug to you the count, can then be submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or any other court, exactly under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto ...
But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're going to get into real trouble.
is surprising that this interview with former president has received so little attention from those who were so quick to fall on me. Clinton goes even further than me. In extreme cases, it would authorize the licensing post facto by a specialized court, as is now the case with recordings of national security. What I proposed es que la autorización legal fuera concedida antes de permitirse el uso de medidas extremas. Una licencia preliminar podría extenderse en cuestión de minutos, a acompañarse de una evaluación más exhaustiva tras los hechos y un examen.
Ofrecí mi controvertida propuesta como modo de estimular el debate acerca de una elección difícil entre diversos males. Espero que el silencio tras la entrevista de Clinton no signifique que el debate ha terminado. El problema permanece. La tortura continuará. No dejemos de pensar y hablar sobre si el mal de la tortura es realmente un mal necesario.
Ofrecí mi controvertida propuesta como modo de estimular el debate acerca de una elección difícil entre diversos males. Espero que el silencio tras la entrevista de Clinton no signifique que el debate ha terminado. El problema permanece. La tortura continuará. No dejemos de pensar y hablar sobre si el mal de la tortura es realmente un mal necesario.
Una propuesta contraria lo pueden leer en el siguiente link:
All totalitarian torture, all torture is totalitarian. Juan García Amado
The Book: John Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof. This book analyzes the totura from the perspective of the law of evidence, specifically, as a mechanism to obtain evidence of the defendant in the course of a sentence. In the end, if not bad memory, it is concluded that this is not a reliable mechanism to gather evidence about a particular event, beyond the grave moral objections that would prevent applying this kind of acts against people.
See also: Torture and Plea Bargaining. John H. Langbein. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol 46, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 3-22. DAMASK, Mirjan. The death of legal torture. Yale Law Journal. Vol 87 860, 1978. Book review of Torture and the law of Proof.
What's interesting address torture, not only from a moral perspective, but from the perspective of the law of evidence (evidence), it allows us to assess whether this mechanism is a reliable means to obtain information about a particular event. Besides that I have moral objections against such a mechanism, I think not used to obtain reliable information.
Philosophically you can see the following links:
Http://gonzalogamio.blogspot.com/2007/12/eplogo-al-debate-sobre-los-griegos-y-el.html
http://eduardohernandonieto.blogspot.com/search/label/Griegos
http://eduardohernandonieto.blogspot.com/search/label/Griegos
0 comments:
Post a Comment