Tortured Logic

Apologists for torturers are fond of the ‘ticking time bomb’ example. Their favorite scene: your prisoner knows the details about a bomb that is planted somewhere in the city and will explode soon. They contend that the urgent danger justifies using torture to extract information. Let’s examine their case.

The dilemma hinges on knowing the prisoner is guilty. We need to add a few real-world details. Just how exactly do you know there is a bomb?
* Did the prisoner tell you? Maybe the prisoner just wants to cause panic.
* Did one of your own people tell you? How can they be sure?
* Did someone else tell you? Maybe this person is lying. Or maybe they know more than they are telling you. Clearly, their credibility is weak if they were members of the terrorist organization. How likely is it that you know your prisoner is a terrorist and you know that a bomb is ticking but you don't know where or when?

The case for torture fails on another logical point. If torture succeeds in making the prisoner say where the bomb is, then you stop the torture while the information is confirmed. This takes time. A lie is as good as the truth to stop the pain, while (putative) the bomb keeps ticking.

Finally, two brief mentions. First, the experts (Israelis) don’t believe that short-term torture is effective. Second, nobody would prosecute an agent who kills a would-be assassin, so certain exceptions are made. There is no benefit to legalizing torture. Experts recommend drugs and psychology, not torture, to get the truth.