Here's <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/torture-and-ticking-time-bomb.html">an interesting commentary</a> on the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario as a case for the ethical legitimacy of torture. If you've been under a rock for the last two years, the scenario runs along the following lines:
<i>You have captured a terrorist whom you know for a fact has planted a time bomb in a major center of population. He is resisting interrogation, and you know that your time is limited. What means are justified to obtain the location of the bomb?</i>
The rhetorical answer is usually <i>any means, including torture</i> which is usually read as, simply, <i>torture</i>. However, this article points out two fallacies in the response:
1. In response to the scenario, we decided that any highly effective means of interrogation was justified to save a large number of lives. However, there is a substantial body of evidence and opinion that states that torture is NOT an effective means of interrogation because the prisoner will say anything to make it stop.
2. When most people consider the scenario, they balance the life of a single bomb-planting terrorist against the lives of myriad innocents. However, we decided that <i>any means</i> could be used to obtain information. And in many cultures there are things that are much, much, worse than the pain and death of an individual. Perhaps our hypothetical terrorist has a wife and children.
Quote:
Perhaps if we brought them into the room? Your superior warns you to steel yourself for what comes next. Perhaps the suspect will respond to mere threats that they might be put to death in front of him. If threats are not enough, however, we must be prepared to do the worst. Of course, in some cultures there are acts regarded as worse than death. Your superior looks at you. Do you understand what he is talking about? Of course you do. You are experienced in the ways of the [Ticking Time Bomb], of doing what is necessary to elicit information under the terrible pressure of a deadline.
Quote:
The TTB counts on eliciting a certain sort of response. Of course, “the president would have to authorize torture” to prevent millions from dying. But surely it puts a slightly different spin on the situation to imagine that you are the one responsible for making sure the interrogation is effective. And you will have to live with the consequences if you turn out to be wrong. What wouldn't you do to prevent millions from dying? Well, I wouldn’t engage in torture, child abuse, murder, rape and a whole long list of morally corrupt acts. And I’m willing to bet you wouldn’t either. Scenarios like the TTB are well designed to cloud our reason and judgment. For that reason, we should avoid them and concentrate on the ways in which we can realistically prevent terrorist attacks.