Why Not Torture Terrorists?: Moral, Practical, and Legal Aspects of the 'ticking Bomb' Justification for Torture
Yuval Ginbar - Oxford University Press, 2010
The
book addresses a dilemma at the heart of the ‘War on Terror’: Is it
ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of
innocent civilians in a ‘ticking bomb situation’ (TBS)? The book first
analyzes the ticking bomb dilemma as a pure moral one, facing the
individual would-be torturer. A ‘never-say-never’ utilitarian position
is pitted against a ‘minimal absolutist’ view that some acts are never
justifiable, and that torture is one such act. It then looks at the
issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in
extreme situations, including when, how, and whom to torture; the
institutionalization of torture; its effects on society; and its
efficacy in combating terrorism in the shorter and longer runs. Four
models of legalized torture are next examined, including current ones in
Israel and the USA and the idea of torture warrants. Finally, related
legal issues are analyzed through extensive use of international and
domestic legal materials; the issues including the lawfulness of
coercive interrogation under international law and attempts to allow
torture ‘only’ after the fact, for instance by applying the criminal law
defence of necessity. A minimal absolutist view — under which torture,
whether by private individuals or by state officials, must be prohibited
absolutely in law, policy, and practice, and allowing no exceptions for
ticking bomb situations — is defended throughout
