[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Ticking time bomb: Might torture be justified in the famous ticking time-bomb scenario?
This scenario is typically used to justify torture as a means to save hundreds of thousands of lives from a "ticking time bomb" in downtown Manhattan. See Wikipedia: Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario
END
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Torture is always wrong - The ends do not justify the means in the case of torture. Because we accept that torture is always morally wrong, even if torture had the potential to save lives, it is unacceptable to sacrifice principle to achieve these ends.
- The "ticking time-bomb" imagines an impossible scenario of perfect information - It is nearly impossible that intelligence would lead to the certainty of the existence of a "ticking time-bomb", the exact nature of the bomb, the location, the timing of the detonation, and the lives at stake. It is also impossible to know with certainty that a suspect has information that will help locate and difuse the bomb. Finally, it is uncertain whether torture will be able to sway an individual to reveal this information (assuming they have it). In other words, it is impossible to determine with any certainty the exact end (the possibility of saving lives) as well as the effectiveness of the means (torture) in helping save lives. This makes it impossible to enter into the "ticking time-bomb's" ethical calculation that would justify the means (torture) by the ends (saving lives).
- The ticking time-bomb scenario leads to a slippery slope of intrusion on rights - The ticking time-bomb scenario is based on probabilities of risk, not certainties, that could lead to a slippery slope of torturing individuals on the mere speculation that it could save lives. Rights could be trampled and torture justified on any intelligence that leads to the mere speculation that it could save lives. Such utilitarianism is highly risky and prone to abuse along a slippery slope that risks tyranny.
- Torture erodes the character of a nation and its success in the war of ideas - A civilized nation cannot keep the moral high-ground if it commits acts of torture. This moral high ground is essential in the long-term war of ideas. If torture is considered brutal and uncivilized, than a civilized nation that desires to have a civilizing effect on the world must avoid torture, or risk undermining its ideological advantage. Even if the "ticking time bomb" scenario were possible, it must be weighed against these substantial costs. But, this scenario's unlikeliness of occurring makes it difficult to justify against the substantial costs that torture entails to the "war of ideas".
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Saving lives? Can torture help save innocent lives?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Torture can protect the life and dignity of the innocent - While some argue that torture violates the dignity of man, it is necessary to view torture in the proper context of defending the life and dignity of the innocent lives that the man who is being tortured threatens. It would never be questioned morally if a man pulled out a gun to shoot innocent civilians and a policeman then shot him down. There would be no argument about the assailants dignity because the assailant was threatening the dignity, life, and rights of other human beings. As such, the assailant sacrifices many of their rights, including the right to be treated with dignity and to continue living (if the man threatens others). There is little difference between a man on the verge of shooting innocent civilians and a man that retains and witholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians (possibly millions). Both are poised to kill innocent civilians, and both have foregone their right to dignified treatment and life itself. The state has the obligation to protect the rights of the innocent over the assailant in both moments.
- Torture has saved lives - Many claim that torture has helped saved lives. Various instances exist that appear to demonstrate that a terrorist plot was foiled by information acquired through torture.
- Torture produces valuable and reliable information. - This argument is included in the above argument page. In order for torture to save lives, the information obtained from it must be reliable.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Nations commiting torture rally an even greater hatred from their enemies A country that performs torture can expect its enemies to exploit this fact as a tool for rallying even greater hatred around their cause. As this seed of hatred is strengthened, it can be expected that a country's enemies will be more effective in recruiting for their cause. This puts a country at greater general risk than before. While instances of torture might be cited as having saved lives, the general existence of torture as a rallying call for terrorists may lead to a greater loss of lives in the long-run.
- Torture violates and weakens international law, which is harmful to the general security of the international system. Confidence in international law requires that it is followed. If it is not followed in regard to torture, it is difficult for other nations to trust that it will be followed in other areas.
- Humane methods of interrogation are better at obtaining information than torture Mind control drugs, sleep deprivation, good cop-bad cop techniques, and verbal intimidation are some examples of these techniques. They may produce more reliable information because they do not take an individual to a level of pain that could cause them to lie desperately to stop the torture. And, of course, these methods are humane.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] International law: Is torture banned under international law?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Terrorists relinquish most of their right to protection under the law.
- Michael Levin. "The Case for Torture" - "There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights.' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary."
- Terrorists have no Geneva rights - The Geneva Convention applies only to Prisoners of War whom are troops of nations that have both signed and abide by the Geneva convention. This does not apply to terrorists who have not state affiliation, have no signatory connection to the Geneva Convention, and who willingly violate the rules of war on the Geneva Convention.
- The Convention against Torture only applies to torture on a countrys' own soil: "...America had ratified (in 1988) the Convention against Torture, but that applied only to acts carried out on American soil, they said." This is justification for the use of Guantanamo Bay.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Torture is discouraged by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In times of war, signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.
- Torture is banned under The United Nations Convention Against Torture - This treaty applies to all individuals, POW or terrorist. While some may argue that the Geneva Convention does not protect, for example, Al Qaeda terrorists because they are not parties to a state, the Convention Against Torture certainly does protect terrorsts from torture. This is an unambiguous piece of international law forbidding the use of torture in ALL circumstances, including the "exceptional" ticking time-bomb" scenario.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Protecting troops: Does practicing torture NOT undermine the safety of a country's own troops?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Terrorists are going to kidnap, torture, and kill Western troops regardless of whether the West uses torture: Terrorists are brutal enemies that would not be affected by the decision of a Western country to use torture. They are already kidnapping, torturing, and killing foreign troops without any calculating consideration of whether the country they oppose is utilizing the tactic of torture. Terrorists are already as extreme as can be; they won't be made more extreme and threatening to sovereign troops because a country is committing torture.
- Torture is not being applied to legitimate foreign troops, but terrorists: No Western nation is performing torture on prisoners of war (POWs) from other sovereign states. If they are performing torture, it is on terrorists or "enemy combatants", which will not cause other states to react in any way regarding the treatment of POWs.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Performing torture puts a country's troops at risk of being tortured in kind - One of the main reasons for international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners of war is to protect a country's own troops from mistreatment abroad. If a country performs torture, however, it becomes impossible to demand that torture not be performed on their own troops. In this way, the practice of torture jeopardizes the safety of a country's own troops.
- Torture dehumanizes the torturer - Torture puts the torturer in a position of dominance and abuse that has a brutalizing effect. This brutalizing effect is dehumanizing, or at least it defeats the virtues of compassion, empathy, and dignity that define a good human being, perhaps in God's image.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Punishment: Can torture be justified as an added form of punishment?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Some terrorists may deserve a little extra punishment for the death and misery they've caused. - If some terrorist have inflicted a massive amount of pain and suffering, aren't they due a proportional amount of punishment. Isn't this their due desert? Or at least, should we flinch at the notion that the most evil of them are experiencing only a tiny fraction of the pain and suffering that they have caused or intend to cause?
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited in all civilized countries, undermining a strict reading of due desert. While due desert is an important legal concept, there must be boundaries to it. A terrorist should be punished to the maximum extend, either with life imprisonment or even capital punishment, but that is the limit. Anything beyond these punishments, including torture, would be considered beyond the realm of acceptability by civilized nations.
- Torture actually creates sympathy for people who should otherwise be scorned and shamed. Pity for terrible criminals and terrorists should not be fostered, as it undermines that appropriate punishment of shame and guilt. Yet, torture affords such figures an element of pity from a public that generally opposes torture. The defendant is pitied and defended by the public instead of vilified.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Moderate forms of torture - Is it acceptable to allow more moderate forms of torture?
Although there is no definition of moderate forms of torture, such forms of torture could include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of hot and cold, prolonged stress positions, hooding and violent shaking. END
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Advanced interogations are pefectly legal: The infliction of severe pain or bodiy damage is generally considered the definition of torture. But this leaves plenty of legal room for advanced interogations that inflict serious discomfort and pain (not severe pain) on the suspect. The law actually allows for a substantial amount of aggressive interrogation techniques.
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] International torture: Does the widespread use of torture internationally make it less bad for the West to perform it?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- The West's use of torture is trivial compared to many countries - The problem with the heavy criticisms of the use of torture in Western countries such as the United States is that it seems to ignore the much more gruesome use of torture in third-world and developing countries. It is as if each instance of torture in a Western country would count as worse than the same instance of torture in a third-world or developing country.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Countries should act on principle, not the prevailing trends of other countries. It doesn't matter what other countries or the world in general are doing. If torture is wrong, it is wrong. Countries should not use the prevalence of the practice of torture in some countries as a shield for their utilizing this unprincipled tool.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Religious arguments
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Protecting the dignity of the innocent is the objective of torture. Protecting the dignity of man in God's image is an important concept. But, it is not violated by torture. Torture involves a trade-off in which the dignity of innocent victims, who are also in God's image, is weighed above the dignity of a terrorist suspect that threatens those individuals. It is acceptable to make this trade-off in the interests of protecting the most humans in God's image.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Why Christians should not support torture - There are many Christian arguments against torture, but the primary of them centers on the dignity of man, made in God's image. To torture is to violate that image.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Institutionalized torture? Could the institutionalization of torture be avoided?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- State sanctioned torture would not reduce morale if understood in the proper context of the national security mission. Torture, in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, can be effectively utilized to save millions of lives. If those that are engaged in the process of developing torture tactics have this valid and profound national security benefit in mind and at heart, they should have no problem with morale.
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] United States law: Does United States law allow for torture?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The US Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan case that detainees are protected from torture by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: The US Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan in 2006 ruled that all detainees, wherever held, were protected by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which bans all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as torture. The Bush administration was forced to accept accept this ruling.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Public support: Does the general public believe torture can be justified?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
Torture "to save lives" has a substantial body of support among publics: In an October 2006 BBC survey of 27,000 people in 25 countries, more than one out of three people in nine of those countries, including America, considered a degree of torture acceptable if it saved lives.[1]
|
[ ] [ ] No
The majority of people think that torture can never be justified:
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] US politicians
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con organizations: What are the main advocacy organizations in this debate?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The Coalition Against Torture and Racial Discrimination]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Bibliography pro and con
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Darius Rejali. Book, "Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran,"
- Jacoby, Jeff, Boston Globe Columnist. "Why not torture terrorists?". Boston Globe March 20, 2005
- David P. Gushee. "5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong And why there should be no exceptions." February 1st, 2006
- Stephanie H. Dray. "Torture is wrong." Associated Content. September 14, 2006
- "Why Retired Military Brass Don't Want Torture". Los Angeles Times. September 24, 2006
- "Why torture is wrong". Retrieved 12.5.07
- Jean Marie Arriga, "A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists," Science and Engineering Ethics 10, no. 3 (June 3, 2004).
- TortureIsNotUs.org. "The Case Against Torture". Retrieved 1.9.07
|
[ ] References:
[ ] External links:
[ ] Books
- Greenberg, Karen. "The torture debate in America". 2005.
|
]
]
]
]