Eu, que não sou nada de obrigar as pessoas a fazer coisas, aconselho vivamente a leitura
deste artigo de Gary Kamiya sobre tortura. Arriscando parecer o Ricardo Araújo Pereira a imitar Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, o argumento certo (isto da lógica dos argumentos é uma tremenda chatice) é algo do género: A tortura resulta? Sim. Existem situações de onde podemos extraír princípios éticos que legitimem a tortura? Sim. Verificam-se na realidade? Não. Devemos torturar? Não. Excertos:
"So the easy argument against torture, that it is ineffective, is wrong. Torture can work. Nor can one simply dismiss the philosophical "ticking bomb" debate. Even ethicists bitterly opposed to torture acknowledge that if that hypothetical situation -- endlessly depicted in Fox's TV show "24" -- actually existed, there would be a compelling moral and philosophical argument for torture in that instance. But in the real world, the "ticking bomb" situation never arises."
"Torture is not morally justifiable. In addition, it has severe negative consequences. Once a nation embraces torture, it forfeits any claim to a moral high ground. It becomes no better than those it is fighting. It may win a battle, but it will lose the war."
"The Chilean writer and human rights activist Ariel Dorfman wrote, "Torture is, of course, a crime committed against a body. It is also a crime committed against the imagination. Or rather, it presupposes, it requires, it craves the abrogation of our capacity to imagine others' suffering, dehumanizing them so much that their pain is not our pain." Torture shatters the lives of those subjected to it, Dorfman writes. It corrupts not only the torturer, but all of society. "Torture obliges us to be deaf and blind and mute." (o bold é meu)