The use of the "ticking time bomb" (TTBS) scenario to justify torture (talking to you Dick Cheney, Richard Haass, John Yoo, et al), is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to meet all of the problem's criteria.
What are the criteria? Ten elements must be in place:
1. An attack is imminent
2. Legal and other authorities know about this imminent attack
3. The attack will kill a large number of innocent people (this assumes a terrorist attack rather than an act in war)
4. Authorities have captured the/a perpetrator who knows where the bomb is hidden
5. The authorities know that this is the right person
6. The authorities know only torture will make him talk
7. There is no other way to know where the bomb is hidden
8. No evacuations are possible
9. Torture, if used, can only used to get information (i.e. not used in a sadistic manner)
10. Torture is used only in extraordinary circumstances
The likelihood that all of these elements will fall into place at the same time is nearly impossible. Conveniently, however, in fiction (hello 24) it happens weekly. Even show creator Bob Cochran admitted as much: Bob Cochran, a 24 co-creator, admitted, "Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb' situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week."
Bottom line: torture doesn't work. Just ask Brigadier General David R. Irvine.
Why do we persist in debating the issue? Torture is illegal, simple as that. Is it also immoral? I argue that it is.
So then why is it still used, even by the Uncle Sam? Is it a question of leveraging state authority? Is it because even with overwhelming resources at hand, spilling the beans comes down to individual agency, an agency the state does not have power over like it believes it should?
.jpg)
Post new comment