Revisiting When it's OK to Torture

During his tour through Europe, John McCain distanced himself from Bush policy by recognizing that waterboarding was torture and declaring that the U.S. would not engage in any similar practices during his Presidency. With this declaration, it is clear that the next Presidential administration will not permit techniques which much of the world would view as torture.

Given this forthcoming change in torture policy, let's revisit past academic defenses of torture. Most commonly, torture is defended in situations where it would be used to prevent mass loss of life. This lesser of two evils/ utilitarian approach was famously articulated in Charles Krauthammer Weekly Standard article, “The Truth about Torture.”

Under Krauthammer’s view, torture is justified in two situations—1) in the “ticking time bomb” scenario where a terrorist who has information that can prevent an imminent terrorist attack refuses to talk; 2) in the “slow-fuse time bomb” situation where a high level detainee like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knows, but refuses to disclose, plans for future terrorist attacks. In both situations, Krauthammer recognizes the moral abhorrence of torture, but views torture as necessary to save lives.

This approach is flawed, not because it is inappropriate to apply utilitarian principles to determine whether it’s appropriate to torture, but because of the assumption that there are only two ends of the scale—the immorality of torture vs. the number of lives saved by torture.

Instead, there are additional costs of torture that Krauthammer fails to recognize.

1) Evidence of the U.S. torturing detainees will be used as a propaganda tool to recruit more terrorists. Without question, images from Abu Ghraib have been a recruiting boon to extremist organizations that seek to recruit foot soldiers willing to attack American interests.

2) U.S. policies that at least tacitly approve of torture harm U.S. alliances.Widespread reporting of the U.S.’s extraordinary rendition program has chilled U.S. allies’ willingness to support the U.S.’s “war on terror.”

Moreover, 3) evidence derived from torture may not be reliable. Although the CIA may disagree, the FBI does not view information derived after techniques like waterboarding as particularly reliable.

Given these costs and the dubious value of evidence derived from torture, torture should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstance. Under the hypotheticals posed by Krauthammer, torture should only be applied in the most clear “ticking time bomb” circumstance—where the government has removed almost all doubt that massive lives will be lost without torturing a terror suspect. Applying torture in other situations, including Krauthammer’s “slow-fuse time bomb” scenario has undoubtedly dealt a blow to America’s future interests in fighting the “war on terror.”

-Law Dude