Ticking Bomb Scenarios & Torture

Between 1994 and 1995 authorities received information that Ramzi Yousef, who was being interrogated in the Philippines, planned to blow up a dozen jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Yousef was one of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Philippine authorities were able to foil Yousef’s plan after they tortured the terrorist for sixty-seven days (Guiora & Page, 2006). By foiling the bombings of a dozen jumbo jets, the Philippine authorities saved several hundred lives before the act was carried out by a terrorist. This scenario is a perfect example of a “ticking bomb” situation. A “ticking bomb” scenario involves an uncooperative terrorist, like an al-Qaeda or Taliban captive, who refuses to produce information about an imminent chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. After all methods of interrogation have not been successful, is it o.k. to torture the captive? National polls have shown that some Americans support torture in some situations, though the majority still opposes torture itself (Allhoff, 2003). If you believe that torture is not morally acceptable and is wrong, consider this “ticking bomb” scenario in Italy.  In 1978 an ultra-left Red Brigade commandos kidnapped former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the head of the ruling Christian Democratic party, after killing his bodyguard (Andersen, 2002). An Italian police officer suggested to General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa that a detainee who had vital information should be tortured to save the former prime minister’s life. General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa was the individual who was in charge of the investigation. General Della Chiesa who was later killed by the Sicilian Mafia, stated “Italy can permit itself to lose Aldo Moro, what it cannot allow is the practice of torture” (Anderson, 2002). Former Prime Minister Aldo Moro was eventually killed by his captives 54 days after he was kidnapped even though a prisoner in government custody had all the information to save a man’s life and arrest members of a terrorist organization. This scenario shows that regardless of the political or moral stance on torture, people still lose their lives. We will examine the legality of torture or lack thereof and history of torture in the United States. The philosophic theories of torture will also be examined.

A report in 2004 conducted an investigation after the Abu Ghraib abuses were highly publicized. The Fay-Jones report identified 44 instances or events of detainee abuse committed by Military Police, Military Intelligence soldiers, and civilian contractors at Abu Ghirab prison. Some of the found actions included the following:

a.       Contests between army dog handlers to see who could make the detainees urinate or defecate in the presence of dogs;

b.      Three detainees were stripped, handcuffed together nude, forced to lay on the ground, forced to lie on each other and stimulate sex while being photographed;

c.       The rape of a female detainee and the rape of a 15-18 year-old male detainee;

d.      A detainee being forced to bark like a dog and crawl on his stomach while MP’s spat and urinated on him;

e.       Several instances of detainees being forced to wear woman’s underwear, often on their heads;

f.       A detainee who was beaten with a broom and had a chemical light broken and poured over his body. MP’s then used the broom to sodomize the detainee while two female MP’s hit him, threw a ball at his genitals and took photographs (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

           These actions lead to the dishonorable discharge of Pvt. Charles Graner, Pfc. Lynndie England, Spc. Sabrina Harman, and others (Guirra & Page, 2006). While lower ranking members working at Abu Ghraid detention center were sentenced and found guilty of their crimes, higher ranking members received no criminal sentences. President Bush further stated during media reports that these actions were the results of “bad apples” and not due to official memos sent from higher commanders. I personally did not believe that these low ranking soldiers acted alone, I believe their behavior was seen by supervisors and nothing was done to stop it. Interestingly enough, the same report in Abu Ghraid offenses states that 90 percent of the detainees were arrested by mistake; even though this cannot be confirmed because of national security issues and lack of media disclosures (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

            While the detainees were not arrested for minor traffic violations and their accused offenses are murderous crimes, does this make torture permissible? Prominent public figures have defended and excused the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraid, although they are illegal acts. It can be argued that individuals forfeit whatever rights that might protect them against torture once they engage in certain activities, such as terrorism. If this philosophical argument is true, then torture technically does not violate rights. Assume that a captive has knowledge that could prevent the deaths of innocent lives, like those in the “ticking bomb” situations described above. If a captive is not tortured and the information is not obtained, then the rights of the innocent lives has just been violated. If you torture or not torture prisoners in a “ticking bomb” situation someone’s rights will be violated. Therefore, I am personally unsure if torture can ever be justified, so long as we find ourselves in such a quandary that rights will end up being broken whether torture occurs or not.             

REFERENCES

Allhoff, F. (2003). Terrorism and Torture. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17, (1), 105-118.

Guiora, A. & Page, E. (2006). The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37, (2/3), 427-447.

 

Andersen, M. (2002). Is Torture an Option In War on Terror?. Insight on the News, 18, (22), 21-23

Hooks, G. & Mosher, C. (2005). Outrages Against Personal Dignity: Rationalizing Abuse and Torture in the War on Terror. Social Forces, 83, (4), 1627-1646.