|
One thing I was wonder is, now that Alan Dershowitz has helped to legitimize torture as a legal state instrument, what could he follow that up with? One thing I can think of is Lynching.
How, pray tell, will Mr Dershowitz go about arguing in favor of that? Well I think the argument would go a little something like this:
"Imagine the scenario where there is a ticking bomb; a nuclear suitcase. It is set to go off at a certain time, but it is tied into an untamperable heartbeat monitor which will ONLY go off if the person wearing it is dead. Oh - and the guy is a terrorist who has killed people. Got it? The bomb will go off destroying Gotham City if the murderer-terrorist is still living. Oh why is the terrorist in that situation? Another terrorist from a rival faction captured him and put him in the predicament.
So what does the circumstance dictate? Is following our moral values to save one life of greater imperative than sparing the millions of those in the city? One could argue that a kinder gentler form of life termination for the terrorist effectively amounts to Lynching. Therefore Lynching should be legalized as a legitimate tool of defense for the state."
So how did I do? I mean, if that argument was good enough for Torture, how far off could I be?
|