Ask Amnesty

From Michael, Oak Park, IL:

I'm trying to formulate a good response to this quandary: Say you have a guy that the authorities KNOW is involved in a conspiracy to kill people. There is a bomb someplace and he knows where it is, but isn't talking. Is torture 'effective' and 'regrettably' permissible in these cases?

Alan Dershowitz posed a version of this question (Los Angeles Times, November 8), when he asked:

"But what if (torture) were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?"

Answering his own question (San Francisco Chronicle, November 8), he added:

"Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do."

The supporters of this conclusion base their view on a belief that torture can be effective, and that it's use - in a utilitarian calculation of doing bad for a greater good - can be permitted.

It isn't realistic
William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

It hides the true cost of torture
The cost-benefit analysis suggested by the question - torture one to save the many - hides the true cost of using torture.

As Alexander Cockburn wrote in 'The Nation' (November 26): "Start torturing, and it's easy to get carried away. Torture destroys the tortured and corrupts the society that sanctions it."

The US does not exist in an isolated corner of the world where use torture might go unnoticed. Any approval of torture by the U.S. - including extradition of suspects to countries where they are likely to face torture - sends a dangerous message of tolerance of torture that will be heard around the world. Amnesty International's 40 years of experience fighting torture shows that once torture has been legitimized, even on a small scale, the use of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading practices inevitably expands to include countless other victims, and ultimately erodes the moral and legal principles on which society depends.

For example, the Israeli government legalized "moderate physical pressure," with controls to limit its use. However, once permitted, thousands of "suspects" were tortured for stone-throwing and other routine offenses, and the practice became routine and systematic. Even though the Israeli High Court banned the practice in 1999, Amnesty International continues to document Israeli authorities' use of torture. Could the US condemn others for using torture, including when it is used against US citizens, if it sanctions it's use at home?

Torture is a problem, not a solution
Torture is a real problem around the world with many hundreds of thousands of victims. Amnesty International has documented torture in more than 150 countries, including the United States. In more than 70 countries, it is widespread. People in 80 countries have died as a result of torture. The victims are mainly detained on minor criminal charges, including women and children, and the methods include rape and brutal violence.

Torture is illegal
The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis.

Learn more about Amnesty International's Campaign to Stop Torture.