About the "ticking bomb" torture scenario

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There's an atomic bomb somewhere in New York set to go off in one hour. You have the guy who planted it, but he won't say where it is. What do you do?

Obviously, you torture him. Yes, he will tell you whatever you want to hear but in the "ticking bomb" scenario what you want to hear is 1) specific and checkable, and 2) known to the captive. (The scenario accepts--for sake of argument--that torture is useful in the scenario.)

Here's where people go wrong with this scenario. (Especially Alan Dershowitz.)

The fact that the captive would, in real-world practice, be tortured doesn't mean torture should be legal.

Would you rob a bank to buy life-saving treatment for your child? Of course. Does that mean bank-robbing should be legal? Does the existence of medical emergencies require that we void all speeding laws because we can imagine an instance where someone might have a reason to violate them?

(As the saying goes, 'tough cases make bad law')

In practice, with the bomb ticking, somebody would torture the guy even though they knew it was illegal and, if necessary, accept the consequences.

Otherwise we have a scenario where we assume the people in the room--a bunch of hard-ass people--will consciously chose to let New York get blown up rather than risking losing their job or serving a stretch in jail. (Again, accepting the parameters of the hypothetical.)

Many Americans have had limbs blown off in the course of making trivial contributions to our safety... like in Iraq. It's not asking too much for someone who finds himself in the once-in-a-million-years ticking bomb scenario to risk his career or freedom for the lives of ten million people. And it's not like a jury will convict him of much, in practice. And the benefit from the seeming unfairness in one freak-show hypothetical is a system where we don't torture everybody for the heck of it.

On the other hand, people will not take such a risk to break the law on their own initiative to find out where some accused terrorist went to high-school.

(And I will not drive down the wrong side of the road at top speed to get to the hospital if I have a cut finger requiring a few stitches.)

[iamjoy]

1. Exactly What I Thought

The people who serve in the military and intelligence operations are willing to die to defend our country, and willing to kill.

In a real ticking time bomb scenario do you think they're going to get squeamish about ripping out a few fingernails or pretending to drown some one because of prosecution?

If it's real, and they diffuse the threat using information obtained by torture well then, they have to face a tribunal. In that case, they may very well be acquitted given the extenuating circumstances. If they somehow do face prison or dishonorable discharge, they will still be a folk hero to many in this nation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Yes. The Dershowitz problem is that he thinks that

The Dershowitz problem is that he thinks that because he can imagine a far-fetched situation where torture is arguable that torture should be dragged into the legal framework with torture judges issuing torture warrants and "oversight" of torture.

But that's a lunatic approach that would merely make torture widespread as "part of the system."

And it leads to an amusing question: Would the ticking time-bomb scenario interrogators really wait to get a torture warrant? Why? The bomb is ticking!