Answer: In the post 9/11 environment society has been consumed by the question of whether torture is acceptable under extreme circumstances. The “ticking bomb” metaphor was regularly employed by various figures in the US as an argument to justify the use of torture in interrogations during the term of the Bush Administration. It is an argument that has been used to justify torture in a set of very extreme and detailed circumstances. This paper will argue that the “ticking bomb” metaphor does not provide a convincing argument to justify the use of torture under extreme circumstances. First, definitions of torture and the “ticking bomb” metaphor will be provided. Second, this essay will discuss the use of torture by the US in the War on Terror. Third, the arguments for the use of torture under extreme circumstances, and the flaws of allowing torture under extreme circumstances will be addressed.
Step-by-step explanation:
any act by which severe pain suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (United Nations 1997).
Torture is prohibited in any circumstance under a variety of international laws, conventions, and norms. It is spelt out in not only the UN Convention against Torture, but also the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the law of armed conflicts, and the Geneva Conventions (Ip 2009: 36). The prohibition of torture is further enshrined in domestic laws of many of the countries who have ratified these treaties. However, the “ticking bomb” metaphor is used to justify torture in certain extreme situations. The concept of the “ticking bomb” was first conceptualised in a fiction novel written by Jean Larteguy in 1960 (Kovarovic 2010: 254). It describes a scenario whereby the torture of a suspect is considered necessary to obtain information to prevent a future catastrophic event from occurring (Kovarovic 2010: 254). The scenario is usually described as one where terrorists have planned an attack that is going to occur very soon and a large number of people will be killed unless the authorities obtain critical information from the source they have captured (Ip 2009: 40). It is essentially torture that has been sanctioned by the state in exceptional circumstances (Bufacchi and Arrigo 2006: 354). Torture is still considered to be wrong in these circumstances, but it is viewed as a necessary or lesser evil (Ip 2009: 40). Proponents of the “ticking bomb” scenario argue that “torture may be wrong…but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one” (Roth 2005: 197).