This Blog is (A) incredible (B) amazing (C) option C does not exist (wk9)

A terrorist has planted a bomb in a major city. You’ve caught him, but he won’t tell you where it is through interrogation. If you don’t find out, thousands will die. Should you torture him to save the city?

In one of my first university classes, we were given this scenario and asked to discuss it. I was surprised at how many people (who’d already stated they were against torture) agreed to torture immediately. We were then asked to have a closer look at the way the scenario was constructed. Many people began questioning their original position. This was because it was specifically designed to manipulate a person into thinking that there were only two choices- torture, or the destruction of the city. It ignored other methods of investigation (which, presumably, led to the arrest of the man in the first place), the possibility that you’d ‘caught’ the wrong person, that the bomb didn’t exist/ wasn’t highly powerful, or that he might lie under torture. This was a scenario designed to make people compromise their original values.

When we looked at wikileaks this week, I couldn’t help but feel we were being manipulated into thinking that Julian Assange’s methods were the only way of doing things, and were necessary for the greater good. The ticking bomb scenario, extreme though it may be, points out the fact that believing that the ends justifies the means is very dangerous thinking. It is important for us to realise how easy it can be to seemingly justify all kinds of behaviour. I think it is necessary to be aware of this and to be able to think critically about the motivations behind and the consequences of any action. We need to avoid binary thinking and attempt to see the many possibilities available to us when solving a problem.

My real problem with Assange’s behaviour is not that he (or his website) has broken a few laws. Laws are made by people, and some are wrong. That’s why they change. I think, for example, that we can all agree there was something wrong with the law when women and Aboriginals could not vote. That is why, at this point, I will not completely condemn hacking and releasing ‘classified’ information. In many instances, such as the revelation of the killing of civilians in Iraq, I absolutely admire Assange. However, I worry that he has become a law unto his own; and that he fails to consider the possibility that his way is not always the best way. Khatchadourian’s article made it clear that Assange believes that full disclosure is always necessary (despite remaining secretive himself), but the real problem with this is the fact that this has led to the endangerment of many lives. For example, despite criticism of many Human Right groups last year on wikileaks choice to reveal the names and sometimes locations of many Afghans who were under threat of ‘punishment’ from the Taliban, wikileaks has not changed its stance and continues to release unedited information, regardless of the consequences.  Seeing this, I think it is necessary to criticise rather than idealise Assange and to consider if there are better ways of approaching the problems surrounding classified information than wikileaks’ methods.