I want to preface the following thought experiment by noting a few things:

1) I hate torture and have actively worked against torture in the public policy arena and have frequently advocated (here on Salon and elsewhere) the trial of George Bush and half his cabinet for war crimes, including torture. Nothing about what Bush did fits a ticking time bomb scenario.

2) Many of the wingers commenting here are full of shit when they say various techniques do not amount to torture

3) I am not (currently) stoned.

4) I repeat: I do not love torture

That said, it is possible to imagine circumstances in which torture would be justifiable. We can debate how realistic those circumstances are. I happen to think they are highly unlikely but possible in today's world. I think those who dismiss the possibility our of hand are whistling past the graveyard. Many of them are also a bit hysterical.

However you come down on the realism of the scenario I am about to describe, the question has a great deal of interest for ethical theory as long as it is even logically possible. Its a great way of testing the relative merits of deontology vs. consequentialism, and decisively debunks deontological thinking -- both that done by philosophers who know what the word means, as well as by those who have no idea they are deontologists but reveal they are by advocating exceptionless rules.

What about this scenario:

Terrorists get a nuke or some other powerful bomb. They begin Operation Bomb New York which requires a great deal of planning and a team of conspirators. They first work on getting the bomb into New York, which they have done, but they are not finished yet figuring out the details of the timing or the blackmail operation that’s going to be part of the plan. So there are, say, weeks or even months until they would actually detonate. In the meantime, our intelligence services intercept a communication or bug a room or surreptitiously copy a hard drive revealing many details of their plan, but NOT the location of the bomb, and the terrorists don’t know this. So we know several of the people who are part of the plan and we know that some of them know the location of the bomb. We capture one of the conspirators whom we know knows the location of the bomb. We interrogate him for a week trying all kinds of non-torture methods to get the location out of him but he is totally recalcitrant.

Do we torture him in order to save hundreds or thousands or, in the case of a nuclear scenario, possibly miilions of lives? Also, in this scenario, we have a way to tell if he is lying or not. If he tells us the bomb is at 454 W. 108th St. Apt 222, we can send agents there to check out his claim. If he is lying we can step up the intensity of the torture.

Unless he is Super Terrorist who can withstand all pain, I have to think he would spill the beans. I know I would once they wired up my balls, tore my fingernails off, and stuck needles in my eyes, if not long before then.

In addition to being philosophically interesting, the point I made above about torture also raises a question about the tactics of opposing torture, like that that the Bush Administration illegally and immorally conducted.

Strategically, I think it is counterproductive to take a really strident stand and vehemently deny that my scenario could ever happen or to take the extreme deontological position that we shouldn’t use torture even in the conditions of my scenario. I think the idea that we would have to torture in those rare circumstances is pretty much common sense.

But all too often people on our side do resort to those strategically misguided arguments and/or ad hominem attacks like, “you’re stoned” or “you love torture” or “you’re an adolescent.” Making those arguments plays into the hands of the torturers by making our side look like extreme and irrational pacifists, thus undermining our credibility when it counts. Far better is to acknowledge common sense and distinguish actual circumstances from the hypothetical ones in my scenario.

Poorly worded title in that last comment. What I meant was something more like:

Dismissing Torture As Not Possibly Being Effective Or Justifiable Plays Into The Hands of The Torturers.

Contrary to Alan Dershowitz, while I agree that torture can be justified in certain very specific and rare ticking time bomb circumstances, I do not think it should be institutionalized. It should remain illegal. If it has to be done, I do not believe that the law will stop the authorities from doing it and I do not believe any jury would vote to convict the guy who saved 15 million lives in NYC by torturing their attempted murderer.

...because he is an ass, not to mention an idiot. All ethical systems converge on this conclusion.

There's a really bad wingnut argument going around that began as one of those bullshit legal memos in the Bush Administration when they wanted to undo the law. I refer to the idea that torture by definition has to cause lasting damage, which some wingnut a few comments back repeated.

Torture is not about lasting damage, it's about severe pain and distress. Everybody knows that. If a neurologist tortured you by stimulating the pain centers of your brain, they might be able to do it without causing any damage at all. But it might be the most excruciating pain ever. Its all about pain and distress.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

anguish, agony or pain, intense pain

The dictionary doesn't mention a word about lasting damage. T

nuff said

There is a distinction made in the literature between the rule OF law, which is what we are supposed to have, and rule BY law which happens in every dictatorship.

We have sadly, devolved in to a nation that is ruled BY law.