The Ticking Time Bomb is False Hypothetical
Written on behalf of Amnesty International USA by Travis W. Hall, former Army interrogator.
In discussing torture proponents typically ask, “What if there was a bomb (dirty, nuclear, biological, chemical, et cetera) in a major US city? Would you not do anything possible to save American lives?” Intelligence experts routinely debunk this hypothetical. First, the odds are astronomically remote that (1) there would be such a bomb; (2) that law enforcement or intelligence agents would know of such a bomb; (3) the agents would have someone in custody that knew of the bomb; (4) the agents would know the person in custody knew about the bomb; and, (5) the person in custody would have enough information to allow agents to timely and properly dismantle the bomb. The only manner in which agents could have this information is from other sources. The bottom line is that if law enforcement or intelligence agents had such robust information from other sources, then torture would be unjustified.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There are some attention-grabbing closing dates on this article but I dont know if I see all of them middle to heart. There is some validity but I will take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we would like extra! Added to FeedBurner as properly Soma bra Detoxify Flonase Agaves How to take zyban disfunction Tadacip fda Freelancer
as Daley Sapere so aptly put it. Here's one. Dirty Harry first film . Kidnap victim with limited time to live. Dirty Harry shot the man in the leg and stepped on his knee. Justified? Torture is inflicting physical pain on a captive, not necessarily to get information. By saying "ever" you almost guarantee a "yes" answer. Should torture be legal ? That's different. I favor Andy Sipowicz's answer in NYPD Blue. "Everybody knows what it means when they ask me to 'reinterview' a suspect. And someday I may go to jail for it. OK." I am not quite willing to say it should be legal. Hard cases make bad law .
Tying moral permission to torture to a the ticking bomb scenario is a red herring. In the event of an actual ticking time bomb, the goal of interrogation would be to extract the full and true knowledge from the subject. Because time is of the essence in this scenario, pain and fear of death are not sufficiently reliable motivators to validate the information extracted through torture.
Psycho-pharmaceutical truth extraction would be the only way to know for sure the information was actionable. Apparently there is not such thing as a truth serum at the moment, or I'm pretty sure it would have been used. By waterboarding number 21, one probably acquires a taste for the experience. One man's torture is another man's S&M fetish. Just ask anybody at Fox News.
However, we wasted billions and billions of dollars chasing the dream of an anti-missile missile which still can't be relied upon to shoot down a nuclear ICBM. For far less money we could develop the illusive truth serum. We can verify the theory is sound by sharing about five Martinis with a co-worker or significant other. Take this to a higher level and I'm sure there is a chemical out there which would completely incapacitate the brain's ability to lie. Cottage research on this subject has been ongoing for years....centuries even.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'll take the drugs anytime.
It seems illogical to argue torture as a just way of receiving information when the situation presented is so far fetched. The ticking time bomb theory plays on the emotions of the person to which the situation is presented to because I think anyone would want to save the lives of a whole city by torturing one person, but then one must remember how outrageous the ticking time bomb situation is. Of course you want to save the innocent lives of civilians, but this situation merely cons people into agreeing by using pathos and no logos.
The hypothetical presented is of such a remote possibility that it is hardly worthy of consideration. What are the odds that officials would know of a bomb located in a city, have a detainee who knows that there is a bomb, know that the detainee has such knowledge, know that the detainee has SUFFICIENT knowledge to lead to the disarming of said bomb, and know that the detainee will respond to torture by releasing such information? This situation is so remote that it is not a worthy justification for the intentional infliction of excruciating physical pain and mental anguish (torture). But sure, to appease the crowd who likes to work off of bizarre hypotheticals, I’ll discuss it.
Consider that this hypothetical were to occur…If someone was so vehemently hateful as to place a time-bomb in a crowded city, would they not be willing to die for their cause? If I felt so passionate about a cause, I would not let ANYTHING get in my way of achieving my goal. Is this not a commonly held ideology among violent extremists? If they are willing to do anything for their cause, they are certainly willing to withhold information. Torture does not negate the importance of their cause.
Even if the timebomb hypothetical was valid, the underlying principal is not. Torture is NOT the only option for obtaining information. It is more effectual to outwit the detainee, using subtle mental trickery to obtain information, rather than torture it out of him. In fact, it is acknowledged by experts that people are willing to say almost anything to suspend torture. The detainee would be more willing to give up false information than true information if they remain true to their beliefs.
I would prefer to see an argument for torture based on ACTUAL circumstances, rather than ones so far-fetched as to lose all viability.
The whole ordeal doesn't have to be about a nuclear bomb that could harm many American lives. Say the President was kidnapped. If someone could kidnap the President then the CIA or FBI or whatever might not be abel to get much info on where he is if they didnt know that a plan to kidnap the President was being set into action. So in this case torture would be justified. The "ticking bomb" hypothesis can be any huge ordeal that needs major attention.
DaleySapere,
I qualify your position on torture. There are are situations in which torture is and is not justified. Therefore you cannot simply draw a line to bar all torture. Before 9/11 there were slim odds of the trading centers falling but it happened. The hypothetical can come true in many different ways and we should not bar one of the few means of preventing it.
By stating that the "odds are astronomically remote", you implicitly accept that the hypothetical is possible. As a consequence, your argument does not logically invalidate the hypothetical... it merely establishes one set of circumstances where the hypothetical could occur.
Therefore,
(1) if agents had a source that could establish that another individual in custody knew of a real bomb and had the means to dismantle,
(2) if this source could not separately supply the location and/or means to dismantle, and
(3) if we accept that torture could obtain this information for us
...then we're back to the original hypothetical. The hypothetical is not invalidated by your statements.
Of course... there are other ways to attack the hypothetical, but you don't do that here. You could argue, for example
(1) That information from a source who had not seen the bomb is heresay
or
(2) That a source... even one who had seen the bomb but lacked the ability to disarm it... could not be certain that the other individual has the required knowledge to disarm it
or
(3) That torture either will never get the information, or
(3a) That torture does not guarantee us to get the information (which would be a weaker argument that still might be sufficient for some readers)
Of course, if you elected to posit one of *these* arguments, you would need to post them separately and would open them up to analysis by the audience... who might also find them faulty.