Home > esteri > A proposito di torture

A proposito di torture


US President George W. Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley speaks to the press 10 November, 2005, at the White House in Washington, DC. Hadley refused to rule out the use of torture in an effort to prevent a major terrorist attack, arguing the war on terror could present a 'difficult dilemma' and the US administration was duty-bound to protect the American people.(AFP/File/Paul J. Richards)A proposito di uno degli argomenti oggi all’ordine del giorno negli Stati Uniti (e non solo, va da sé), cioè delle torture, e in particolare della “precisazione” fornita dal Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale Stephen Hadley su questa delicata materia (a commento di una precedente dichiarazione del presidente Bush), vorrei dire in tutta franchezza che non sono per niente d’accordo e che non credo vi sia molto spazio per sottigliezze interpretative.
 
Cosa ha detto Hadley? Ecco un resoconto:
 
In an important clarification of President George W. Bush’s earlier statement, a top White House official refused to unequivocally rule out the use of torture, arguing the US administration was duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack.
 
The comment, by US national security adviser Stephen Hadley, came amid heated national debate about whether the CIA and other US intelligence agencies should be authorized to use what is being referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract from terror suspects information that may help prevent future assaults.
 
Faccio mio il severo commento del Professor Norman Geras:
 
The US government is indeed duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack, but that doesn’t warrant doing so by violating the most fundamental norms of civilized behaviour; and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ is, in this context, a barbarism that only a public spokesperson could utter without embarrassment.
 
Il resoconto prosegue così:
 
… Hadley elaborated on the policy, making clear the White House could envisage circumstances, in which the broad pledge not to torture might not apply.
 
"The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law," the national security adviser said. "But… you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there’s going to be a devastating attack on the United States?"
 
Lascio di nuovo a Norm la parola:
 
That’s always the sort of example wheeled out – torturing to avert an imminent catastrophe. But in matters of this gravity the law has to be formulated to embody, not the exceptional case, but the fundamental norm, general policy. And even in the exceptional case – when the heavens are about to fall – to torture is to commit a wrong and a crime. Those who represent and act for us, in democracies, need to know that. They are less likely to know it if they prevaricate over what the basic norms actually are.

Advertisements
Categorie:esteri
  1. 16 novembre, 2005 alle 0:57

    Un commento, quello del professore, che sottoscrivo anch’io senza esitazione. E ci tengo a dirlo: come uno che si considera pro-America.

    Grazie per la segnalazione. Vado a linkare il post. Saluti.
    w.

  2. 17 novembre, 2005 alle 18:08

    Condivido il bel post: lo linko!
    Grazie

    Saluti

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Rispondi

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: