Sorry, all, I keep harping on the subject and I'm, sure it's getting dull even to folk who agree with me. But this post does some fine work at debunking the whole "Torture is okay because some day there might be a nuclear bomb that can only be stopped by torturing some evil terrorist dude."
This hypothetical is very much exactly that (no, none of the guys we tortured was tortured because of a ticking time-bomb), yet it is then extended down that infamous slippery slope to "So if a greater evil can be averted a lesser evil it' all just dandy-fine." Which it's not (it's still evil by definition) and it assumes that we know that there is a particular greater evil that can and will be stopped (vs. innocent shlubs that we know we tortured "by accident").
The problem is, where does that slippery slope stop? If it's okay to waterboard someone because you think he might have information that might eventually lead to the apprehension or killing of a big wig terrorist, is it okay to waterboard someone because you think he might have information that might eventually lead to the apprehension or killing of a small potatoes terrorist? Or that might eventually lead to preventing someone being shot? Or that might eventually lead to keeping a few kilos of cocaine off the street? Or that might eventually prevent someone from cheating on their income taxes? Or parking in a no parking zone? How do we as a country decide how much pain and injury is acceptable to inflict in order to possibly avert some future transgression?
If not waterboarding then how about "the third degree" and a rubber hose? How about tazing a guy a few times because he might give up the name of his drug dealer? How about just letting the cops break a few ribs or fingers to teach a guys a lesson so he won't offend again? Literally, where does it stop, and on what rational basis?
"Oh, yeah, Dave? So what would you do in the case of a ticking time-bomb scenario? What would you do if the kidnapper had your daughter stashed somewhere and he was tied up in a chair in front of you?"
I don't know, because those are scenarios beyond my ken, so incredibly unlikely that we might as well be talking about what I would do in case of a Martian invasion. Extending my imagination, though, it's altogether possible that I would resort to violence as a last (not first) resort. Out of anger, out of fear, or out of a pragmatic choice of, if everything else fails, trying to inflict some pain might possibly get the information needed. I might just do that.
But you know what I wouldn't do? I wouldn't pretend that it was an heroic act, or that it wasn't illegal or immoral because, well, after all, sometimes you have to do a lesser evil to avert a greater one. I'd do what I'd do, then I'd admit my wrongdoing and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Because what I would be doing would be illegal and wrong, and institutionalizing those choices as viable, legitimate options would be a very bad idea.
The ‘Ticking Time-Bomb’ Defense of Torture Is Evasive and Irrelevant
Prominent apologists for harsh CIA interrogations keep invoking a scenario that everyone agrees never happened.
Spot on!
Whatever became of truth serum ???????
+Arthur Wolters Just like ticking time-bomb scenarios, truth serum is more of a cinematic convention than a real thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum has a bit more info.
That said, there are a number of studies that suggest (a) coercive techniques yield poor results and (b) other techniques actually do a much better job. Apparently torture is easier, though.
(Not that efficacy should be the sole criterion, or, arguably, part of the criteria at all for something like this. We don't argue that slavery should be abolished based on whether it's economically viable or not.)