REASON also important for human rights!
For example, reason says:
Much better to shoot down a "terror plane" with 300 passengers to save 3,000 people in the targeted skyscraper! Because the lives of the 300 would be lost anyway - whether they are shot down or slammed into the tower:
if I shoot them down, 3,000 lives will be saved! !
If I don't shoot them down, 3,300 people will die!
In addition, there is a so-called "human rights stalemate" between the two groups of people to be judged. This means that both are entitled to the same human rights.
So no group has a legal quality advantage!
But then, logically, the quantity of affected groups is the deciding factor. That means:
Saving 3,000 human lives is 10 times as sensible or important as just 300! !
Ratio (the mind) also says:
Of course you even have to torture someone if a lot of human lives can be saved by the most important information squeezed out in this way. If, for example, a terrorist had just spat out in advance of the act that they wanted to crash planes into the 2 WTC towers, into the Pentagon, Capitol, etc. + let them explode. And anyone with any sense can quickly imagine that this leads to many thousands of victims. Anyone who is mentally sane will rate thousands of human lives much higher than the pain of torture of an inhuman terrorist murderer! !
For the ratio, the case can be decided quickly and easily. It is only for moral, ethical, religious, etc. reasons that one is so - sorry - stupid and inhuman that the pain of an individual is valued higher than the life of thousands of people (who then die in agony, even if we don't directly experience it that way ! ! ). This behavior could probably be called "indirect, hidden aiding and abetting of mass murder".
Torture pain in perpetrators in spe are nothing compared to the unspeakable suffering and the expected horrid death of many attack victims! ! And yet greater sacrificial suffering hardly gets any attention. Against lesser torture pains in the perpetrators of crimes, but half the world is up in arms! How come? ?
The explanation is probably quite simple: There are reports, documentaries and photos of the injuries from those who were tortured. There are of course no photos of the death + suffering of the terror victims, possibly very sparse "last minute" cell phone/telephone descriptions.
We can't get a real, comprehensive picture of their last phases of suffering and minutes of death. This is also much more pleasant for us - but also leads to the aforementioned deficit in effectiveness. After the fact, we can only vaguely speculate about the final suffering or the extent of the horror of the victims, use our imagination.
Photos just exercise a lot of power - they often have a decisive influence on our thinking, feeling, judging, acting, etc.. Now as a prosecutor, judge, (legal) politician, special scientist (and the like), the full extent of horror and to experience the unvarnished truth of the cruelty of a terrorist attack and to be able to judge it objectively, I also need camera and sound surveillance in areas that have been completely unusual up to now. In airplanes: black box (information about certain technical data) and voice recorder (only the pilot tower radio traffic) are almost unsuitable for this. Only image and sound surveillance of the entire passenger area gives a chance to shed light on this hitherto totally taboo obscurity.
Small EXCOURSE on the subject of "video surveillance in public places".
Perfection fanatics are always happy when they can recite their stupid argument here: "Yes, but crimes cannot be prevented 100% with this measure!"
1) It doesn't have to be. It's difficult in an imperfect world anyway.
2) Can it just be an attempt at a "manslaughter argument"; for what realist expects such absoluteness anyway? Preventing 80/90% of crimes would be something! Or??
I don't have a problem with "Guantanamo"
either, since mass-murdering, serious criminals, in my opinion, have totally forfeited their right to human rights. Anyone who does not pay the slightest attention to this in others should not be treated with kid gloves themselves (I have already examined this topic in detail in another chapter). If "Guantanamo" leads to a more effective fight against terrorism, more security in detention, better assertion of victims' interests, etc., why not?
All rights belong to its author. It was published on e-Stories.org by demand of Harry Schlo▀macher.
Published on e-Stories.org on 05/20/2023.