may remember that, years ago, I ran a thread about ethical/moral dilemmas. I posed questions about some tricky situations and invited you to say what you would do.
Prompted by something someone said to me today, I thought it might be interesting to try the same thing again.
See what you think about this:-
A man who has threatened to explode several bombs in trains and office buildings has been apprehended. He says he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything because his lawyer has told him he has the right to make no comment.
In desperation, a senior police officer suggests getting the information by the use of violence. This would be illegal, of course, but the officer thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. You are the Home Secretary, and the problem is dumped in your lap over the phone. You are told that the man has a wife and two young children and that the wife had no idea what her husband was doing.
You have to make a decision and make it quickly. What would your answer be?