General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas there ever been "a ticking time bomb?"
To justify the use of torture, torture-fetishists often cite the hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which an imminent threat can be stopped in time only if we brutalize a prisoner to obtain information about the threat.
It's a seductive rationalization, because it excuses all manner of atrocities by invoking the safety of the greater good, and it resonates nicely with slogans about protecting the freedom of innocent Americans. Of course, it's merely the tip of a wedge, because once we accept that premise, then we can easily fudge the numbers on the imminence of the threat, or the severity of the threat, or the particular prisoners whom we decide have the necessary info, etc.
But has this hypothetical situation ever actually happened? Have we ever faced a situation in which some terrible event was guaranteed to happen unless we tortured someone? Did we torture that person? Did we thereby prevent the terrible event?
With their anal rape circus now at least partially revealed, the CIA and its apologists are insisting that we did indeed extract vital, actionable intelligence via hoses inserted deep into the rectums (and beyond) of innocent victims, along with a host of equally vile tactics. Of course, they won't tell us exactly who told us what, because secrecy. But does anyone doubt that they'd have said exactly the same thing if they'd obtained false information or no information at all?
In short, there is simply no justification for torture, and Orwellian equivocation about "enhanced interrogation" is simply an attempt to sanitize the process for dumbed-down public consumption.
I gather that most of us here are on the same page about this, but if you run into someone (on Facebook or at a holiday dinner or wherever) who trots out the beloved "ticking time bomb" excuse, make them provide specific examples of cases in which this bizarre hypothetical has ever actually unfolded in the real world as imagined in the fantasy.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)In real life not so much, but because the right-wing tends to base their views on fiction an episode of 24 carries far more weight with them than reality does.
Orrex
(63,195 posts)I didn't watch most of the (original) final season nor any of the season set in London, but we all know that 24 is regarded as a prime example of torture porn.
The interesting thing, especially in the context of the newly released report, is that in the entire run of the series that I watched, I only recall one instance when torture employed by the "good" guys actually gleaned useful intelligence--in the first 3 minutes of the pilot episode. And in that case I believe that South Korea did the torturing.
In pretty much all other cases, the information obtained was false, or redundant, or incorrect, or obsolete, and in some cases innocent people were indeed tortured for (ultimately) no reason. Further, uber-tough-guy Jack Bauer practically disintegrated over the course of the show, thanks in large measure to the raw destructiveness of inflicting the torture in the first place.
Yes, the violence may have been gratuitous, but the clear message IMO is that torture doesn't work and serves only to destroy the people who commit it.
In that sense, 24 is sadly true-to-life, undercutting the CIA's claims about the efficacy of torture.
yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)For one thing, bombs usually don't "tick," at least not anymore. They generally go off when someone sets them off electronically.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)he got it from the ACME bomb company.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)Subjective much?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Largely because of movies and television shows in which it did happen. But there's a reason that trope keeps showing up - it could theoretically happen.
That said, that's a hypothetical situation - as far as I know none of the torture we inflicted literally involved a ticking time bomb.
Bryant
if an extremist terrorist knows about a ticking time bomb, all the have to do is endure the torture until the bomb goes off.
Surely some one willing to blow himself up will hold off or lie until it goes boom.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)world wide wally
(21,739 posts)yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)2naSalit
(86,508 posts)Not totally unrelated.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Would you torture someone to find out whether or not there was a "ticking time bomb"?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)asking? I have not had much training in Formal Logic (of the Boolean truth-table variety), but how would the torturer ever be satisfied with a 'no' answer? (IOW, the act of torture already presumes the TTB does exist.)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was not hair-splitting, it was pointing out the weakness of that whole line of thought
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)it was a prof trying to demonstrate Utilitarian ethics or some such.)
Do you remember what the upshot of the class discussion was? I'll bet it was a great discussion!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I just mean that that's the kind of question studying philosophy leads you to ask and think about when asked.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)into the discussion:
Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)if there was a ticking bomb. is there any expectation that torture would give you results?
Why would the bomber just hold off long enough for the bomb to go off?
Are other methods better?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,164 posts)former9thward
(31,965 posts)It is all classified.