Is Torture Ever Justified?

Recommend (4) Comments (7)

The first condition is particularly interesting. A war may be just if the damage inflicted by the aggressor would be lasting, grave and certain (think of a rogue nation threatening to use a nuclear weapon in its possession). In the same way, torture might be justified if a prisoner is known to have information that would certainly save many innocent lives that are threatened because of the prisoner’s actions.     

We can think of the proverbial ticking time-bomb scenario, in which a captured terrorist has hidden a bomb that will detonate in a couple hours in an unknown location. This is the extreme example, but it is not as rare as some suggest. Israeli authorities say they have thwarted at least 90 terrorist attacks by using what the United Nations labels torture but what Israel has called necessary physical coercion (including physical restraints and sleep deprivation).

Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou has admitted to waterboarding al-Qa'ida suspect Abu Zubaydah while attempting to obtain life-saving information. Kiriakou used the technique, which is unpleasant enough to force prisoners to talk but leaves no permanent injury, and broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds. The suspect answered every question from that day on (which speaks to another criterion under Just War Theory—that there must be serious prospects of success). The agent says he has no doubt that the information provided by Zubaydah “stopped terror attacks and saved lives.”  

While there is a moral imperative not to use “whatever means necessary,” it may be permissible—even obligatory—to use enhanced interrogation to extract necessary information when lives are at stake.