Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb
The police has arrested a terrorist in Lincoln, RI. He claims he has placed a large bomb somewhere in town. He says it will detonate in less than 2 hours. He refuses to to disclose the location of the bomb. Two hours is not enough time to call for an orderly evacuation of the town. The panic may actually cause greater injury. Do we torture the terrorist suspect until we determine the location and diffuse the bomb? Or do we chance a hurried evacuation that may cause countless accidents? And how do you reach everyone in town to inform them of this crisis? What about the sick and elderly in town? How do we remove them in under 2 hours? Is torture the best and only response? What do you do? Meanwhile - tick, tick, tick...
Please post a response by Monday, February 4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis situation had me very conflicted at first because I consider myself a pacifist however, so many lives are at stake.I do think that torturing the terrorist would be the only way to get the location of the bomb out of him but torture is cruel. There is also the possibility that even if you torture him, he will not reveal the location. At the same time the torture of one terrorist is worth possily saving many innocent lives. Since it is not certain that he will tell the location of the bomb even after being tortured. I think that during the two hours we should try to evacuate Lincoln as much as possible to save as many lives as possible.
ReplyDelete-Gilisa Paternina
Part 1/2
ReplyDeleteTorture, “the act of inflicting excruciating pain as a means of getting a confession or information.” The United Sates Government as well as its citizens are becoming increasingly aware that the “issue” of torture can no longer go unresolved. If we are to protect our nation as well as its inhabitants then we need to devise a plan of action regarding torture that accommodates all terrorist situations in a uniform and systematic way. Should law enforcement officials be allowed to torture a suspect to get information from him/her? If so what circumstances warrant what kinds of torture? What methods are considered allowed and disallowed when torturing a suspect? Clearly, with the topic of torture there are far more questions that arise than there are answers to them. I however, will attempt to answer these questions with my personal opinion telling what I would do if I were required to provide an answer to these questions that certainly have more than one correct answer.
According to Alan Dershowitz, “many tongues are loosened by this process (torture) and several terrorist acts prevented, without any suspects being seriously injured.” This them brings about the question “if torture works, then why not use it.” This question however does not take into consideration the fact that someone needs to decide when torture is allowed and whether or not it should be done within or out of the law. Within the law, torture would be discouraged because it is considered as cruel and unusual punishment and in addition disregards a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial. On the other hand, outside of the law, torture could get out of hand without sanctions to keep it uniformed. Thus, in my opinion laws should be adaptive to torture to accommodate it but also adhere it to a reasonably humane standard. For example, officials would not be able to cause the death of a suspect while performing tortuous acts. In addition, officials would be unable to take the law into their own hands regarding whether or not a certain situation warrants the torture of a person.
This then leads me to my next point that torture should only be allowed if, like in any landmark case, the Supreme Court rules in favor of it. The decision to make torture “legal” should not be made by one judge in one court nor should it be made on the spot by a law enforcement official unsure of how to handle a situation. Instead, I believe that torture needs only to be allowed if the Supreme Court warrants it and if a legitimate warrant is obtained with sufficient evidence as to contain probable cause that a person or persons have conspired to cause harm to innocent and defenseless men, women, and children.
Now, what if a suspected terrorist lies while being tortured and wastes time by diverting law enforcement officials away from the imminent threat? Or what if the suspect doesn’t have any information regarding the whereabouts of said bomb? Should one or both of these be the case then I would advise that while in the process of torturing the suspect in an attempt to gain information from him that law enforcement also evacuate as many of the innocent people as possible from the area where they suspect the bomb could do the most harm. This then brings about the question, how such an evacuation would be possible. In my opinion, the safest way to evacuate the people within the danger area would be to issue a warning over television, radio, and media sites to reach out to as many people as possible. Because this method although the fastest may cause panic the Military and other armed forces such as the National Guard would be in place to ensure that a smooth and safe evacuation takes place.
---Nick Palumbo
Part 2/2
ReplyDeleteTherefore, to recap, torture is absolutely necessary however it should not be used until all of the guess work is taken out of it. By this it is meant that the Supreme Court and perhaps even Congress vote to decide when and how torture is used. In addition, an evacuation is necessary to cover as many bases as possible should the bomb unfortunately detonate. This is how I would deal with acts of terrorism against the people of The United States and yes Chrisvan we may very well disagree.
---Nick Palumbo
Nicholas, as much as it pains, irks, and troubles me to say this, I do, in fact, agree with the majority of what you have said in the above post. The cost of the human dignity of one does not outweigh the livse of countless others. Innocent people should not have to be sacrificed just so we can say we were only trying to be “humane” in the situation. In fact, I would go as far as to say we should not (at least most of the time) be humane to those who are inhumane to us. However, to fully understand one’s own argument, one must know the argument of the opposition. Therefore, in an attempt to better understand our own argument (and to not get a 0 for this blog), I have done extensive research in the argument against torture and, I will play devil’s advocate and argue for the opposition.
DeleteThe biggest problem with Alan Dershowitz’s “torture warrant” argument is his overestimation of human faultlessness. By this I mean that Alan Dershowitz believes too much in human judgment- that he does not take into account human error. Even he, a man in a profession based on evidence, says that, “I believe, though I cannot prove, that a formal requirement of a judicial warrant as a prerequisite to non-lethal torture would decrease the amount of physical violence directed against suspects” If he can’t prove it, then he has no authority in arguing for or against it. The fact of the matter is humans make mistakes. And if a mistake is made in deciding whether or not a person should be tortured, whether or not they should have their human dignity ripped away from them, it would have dire consequences.
A person’s dignity is one of their most prized possessions. It is not tangible, nor can you put a price on it. However, some argue it is one of the most important things one possesses. The fact that you can take away not only another person’s, but your own as well through one terrible act is troubling. There is no way around it, torture is inhumane. Once enacted upon a person it tears away not only at the victim’s soul, but the inflictor’s as well. Once such a horrible act is approved, can we consider ourselves civilized? When something that can deface another human and remove his humanity from him is considered lawful, are we allowed to call ourselves humans? What makes us humans is our ability to control our impulses. Our Ego and Super Ego a Freud would call it. This is what separates us from the animals. We can think and reason. Realize what we are doing is wrong and put an end to it. If we do create “lawful torture,” we would be ignoring our own conscience. Ignore the voice that tells us we should not vandalize another’s rights as a human. If we are born civilized, it is better to die civilized, than to die as animals.
One other argument against torture is that we are harming a defenseless person. By definition, if a terrorist is caught and disarmed, he is no longer a threat and is therefore defenseless. However, some may argue that if said terrorist has information regarding the safety of those at risk, he is still a combatant. This poses a dangerous precedent however. Of such an explanation is used, then wouldn’t a captured soldier still be considered a combatant? The soldier could still hold information about troop movement and further plans that poses a risk to his enemies. Therefore, in this instance if a captured terrorist can be tortured, so can a captured American soldier.
DeletePerhaps the most powerful argument against torture is that we are the United States of America. We are the last standing super power. We stand for liberty and justice. We are the ones who set the precedent for the whole world. If we were to engage in such an act publically, who’s to say other countries shouldn’t? If we ignore the rules defined by the Geneva Conventions and The United Nations for jus in bello, why shouldn’t other countries? Once we reject international laws that even we developed, other countries, or even terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, can easily say, “If the United States is doing it, why can’t we?” Therefore, it would be ill-advised to begin conducting such practices for the United States.
As we further examine the argument against torture, even I, someone who believes such a situation warrants torture, can see why others believe it would be unwise to torture. It is said that, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” In this case doing nothing would mean not torturing. However, if we do begin to torture, are we truly a nation of “liberty and justice for all” or liberty and justice for ourselves and not those that aren’t us?
I believe that we should torture the terrorist. While in most cases we should try to stay as far away from torture as possible in these circumstances torture is the only way. When the lives of civilians are at stake it is okay to torture for information. While authorities are torturing the terrorist they should also be evacuating the town. Such as in war where one justified reason is "Last Resort" so to in the case of torture. Since at the given time there is no others means of finding the bomb it is justifiable to torture for it.
ReplyDelete-Colin Krohto
When presented with a situation like this, most people would be torn do you stay moral and not hurt another human or hurt someone and save others? I believe that the person setting the bomb knew what they were doing and they wanted to hurt others. So if they are willing to hurt others why should we go out of our way to protect them when they put so many others in danger? I believe that we should use torture to gain the information that will save lots of innocent people. In the articles it is debated if torture should be incorporated into our law enforcement and I think it should be. In some times it could really help as stated in the article “Knowing that such a threat was authorized by the law, he might well provide the information.” This could actually make it possible to not even have to hurt the person because they would know that we have the laws backing us. The law would have to be monitored carefully but it could be useful. Lots of situation can arise and it is necessary to be ready for all of them. I believe if this did happen torture should be used as a means of saving others.
ReplyDelete-Pamela Whatley
This situation there is really no one clear answer. I believe that in a situtation where alot of innocent lives are at stake and there really is no other way of getting every person out safely, torture should be inflicted on the terrorist. The main goal of the terrorist is to kill and inflect pain into the lives of the citizens of lincoln, so why not cause pain to the terrorist? Although there is no gaurentee that the location of the bomb will be reveled torture has the best chance of getting the information out. Besides what are you going to do besides torture? Try to talk the terrorist into telling the bomb location, that just isnt going to happen.The terrosist should have torture inflected upon them because that is the only way to get the information of the bombs loaction, and they has the intent to harm innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteTommy Janicki
In a situation like this, torture is the only reasonable answer. The terrorists goal is to kill and injure the civilians, and to find the location of the bomb, torture is the best option. In situations like this, the importance of the safety and protection of the many, the citizens, far exceeds the necessity to uphold the rights of the few. Since torturing is the best way to get this answer, we would have to step back from our moral standpoint and think of the greater good, which in this situation, the cost of torturing another human being is well worth insuring the safety of the innocent civilians who haven't done any wrong. This is why torture is acceptable and necessary in a situation such as this.
ReplyDeleteNick De Gennaro
In this situation there is only once choice. The terrorist must be tortured. There is however a proper way to do it. This guy needs to understand that until the bomb is found he will not stop suffering. If anyone has ever seen the movie "Unthinkable", that shows the most effective form of torture i have ever seen. The man should be continuosly tortured until the bomb is found, even if he does speak you continue until it is found and defused so that he understands the pain doesnt stop until he tells the truth. Also, you take his wife or his kid and you threaten them with physical harm, no matter how out of it the guy is he will not be able to sit there and watch you torture the people he loves. in this movie the terrorist they are torturing has a wife and child, they torture both the wife and child in front of the man and kill the wife. Though this is extremely cruel it is very effective. It is the most reliable way to save thousands of lives. in this scenario torture, done properly and executed with extreme prejudice is absolutely necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn a situation like this, a lot of lives are at stake and evacuation would cause so much panic that people could get injured on the roadways just trying to run to the hills. The best way to solve this problem would be to torture the terrorist and make sure he knows that the bomb must be found or he will keep on suffering. This is the only way to stop this threat. One reason would be because this is the only way to make the terrorist give up the location of the bomb in a quick manner, which is necessary in locating and disarming the bomb. Another reason is because the terrorist has it coming to them. I’m not saying that we should just torture for revenge or even just to bring pain to the terrorist. I’m saying that if they haven’t given the location of the bomb up yet than they deserve to be tortured to an answer. The terrorist was willing to hurt others so we shouldn't go out of our way to protect them. Torture should be used in this situation, but only until the location of the bomb is revealed and it is disarmed because this is the only way to ensure safety for the citizens of Lincoln.
ReplyDelete-Ian Borzain
To be completely honest I have no idea how I would choose to try and solve this situation. It seems like there is really no "right" way to deal with this. On one side you have to deal with the possibility of many people dying the other you have to use cruel torture methods on another person which there is a chance it won't even work. My personal belief is that torture really can't be justified even in a situation where many lives are at stake. The main reason I say this is because it goes completely against my morals and in my opinion if you do something as inhumane as torture somebody that makes you no better then a terrorist. In fact wouldn't using torture make you a "terrorist" considering you are using fear to get what you want. What I'm really trying to say is that I believe using torture is wrong and really shouldn't be used even if you say it's for a good reason, it's still bad.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt
In a situation like this, there would be no choice but to torture the terrorist. There are so many innocent lives at stake that we need to do whatever is necessary to protect them. There should never be innocent people killed in any situation. There is no other choice but to torture the terrorist to get the location of the bomb and ensure the safety of the thousands innocent civilians.
ReplyDeleteUnder other circumstances i would be against torture. I believe as a whole torture does not provide any useful information and is self destructive. However in a situation where the terrorist has already admitted to having involvement with a bomb than i believe it is okay to torture him/her to find the location of the bomb. However if it were a situation where we didn't know if the person had involvement with the bomb than torture is not okay.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Brehio
If I weasel my way around the question, I say that we torture the terrorist while simultaneously evacuating the town. In order to find the bombs location I believe that torture is acceptable. Even if he is innocent and has no correlation to the bomb they should torture him until he admits to it in the name of justice. The main purpose is to keep the law officials as "the good guys" in the eyes of the public. We have to use extreme methods of torture in order to get an honest answer out of the suspect. The suspect has to realize that we will not stop until justice is served.
ReplyDeleteI believe that torture violates basic human rights and is not the best and only response. Torturing this ‘terrorist’ encroaches upon the United State’s idea that all individuals are innocent until proven guilty. I do not think that our government should act on suspicions and false accusations in any case, especially when they are dealing with a situation of this nature. Bomb threats, even if they happen to be a false alarm, should be taken with tremendous caution. Torturing the terrorist is not the only way to receive information. My first action to protect my town would be to have the terrorist to take a lie-detector test to determine if he/she is indeed telling the truth. I would contact local authorities as well as the Department of Public Safety and the National Guard to help access the situation. I believe that it would be in the town’s best interest to place the town in a state of emergency. I believe that is necessary for Lincoln to take precautions in this situation. The next step is to get the word out of the town’s evacuation. This can be accomplished with radio and television broadcasts, emails, automated phone calls to every household, posts on social media outlets, and text messages. Emergency personnel, military officers and town workers can assist in helping those in need to evacuate in a timely manner, making use of school buses and other means of public transportation if necessary. The time is running out and many individuals’ lives could possibly be in danger. A bomb threat should not be taken lightly; even if is only a fake. I agree with Dershowitz’s statement “(torture) should not be made by nameless and unaccountable law enforcement officials, risking imprisonment if they guess wrong.” Torturing the terrorist to obtain information is extremely illegal, inhumane and cannot be justified.
ReplyDelete- Jillian
I do believe that torture is not necessary in this instance. This is because its a ticking time bomb so all he has to do is stall until the bomb goes off, this could be through telling false information or just information the interrogates want to hear. That is why i believe that torture would not be a good option in this situation.
ReplyDelete-ben