Law-makers breaking the law: torture as a justified interrogation technique?
In the theory, this concerns a few members of staff seen as
collateral damage for the sake of acting upon assumption. This however serves no
purpose and rather voids their efforts, which makes the destabilization of their health in
theory having occurred unjustly (which it would be in the first place as well, of course).
Should a government then always act according to law or is it justified to in case of
emergency set the laws aside? Is it possible to choose between two evils?
Unlawfulness
In a constitutional state there are rules the executive power needs to follow and that can
sometimes make fighting terrorism inconvenient. Methods perceived as effective are not
legitimate. Utilitarian thinkers believe this can be disregarded as to avoid a greater evil,
authorities inevitably have to break the law. Michael Ignatieff (2004) states that
governments needn't follow national and international law as precisely in case violating
this law will avoid bigger crimes.
annaabi.ee 
