Stupidity of the "Ticking Time Bomb Theory"

nbachris2788 · 01-15-2009, 11:23 PM

In case you don't know, the "Ticking Time Bomb Theory", or TTBT for short, is the idea that torture should be used in extreme scenarios where a terrorist attack is only hours away and the mastermind behind it has been captured. Proponents believe that in such a case, torture should be allowed in order to prevent the imminent attack.

Never mind that this is a theory that seems to regard "24" as a documentary, but let's think logically for a minute here. Everybody knows that information gained from torture is even more worthless than internet gossip. Let's suppose you're a captured mastermind behind an attack on U.S. soil that is about to happen in a day. You're waterboarded, and after a few seconds, you give up and tell them (falsely) that there are planes headed towards the Sears Tower. How much time do you think is going to pass between your moment of "confession" and the moment the authorities realize that you're lying? Enough to get those torturers off your back and allow the real attack to succeed?

The problem with torture is that it creates an incentive to talk, not talk truthfully. There's no way for the torturers to know if anything the confessor's saying is true, and in a time-compressed scenario such as the one set up in the TTBT, there is even more incentive for the tortured party to say anything that will cause enough of a delay for the attack to succeed.

Sligh_Anarchist · 01-16-2009, 07:13 AM

Well, the Bush administration thought torture was a useful tactic.

iloveagoodbrew · 01-16-2009, 12:34 PM

Yea probably, but hell, they are terrorists. Spit roast them over boiling glass for all I care. make them watch Rosie O Donnell strip if it suits you. Man I am ****ed with 24. Did you see the 2nd hr, Bauer wraps some cloth over his pistol as an improvised suppressor? Wth? I like the FBI agent though, she is awesome.

siglio21 · 01-17-2009, 06:15 PM

^"If that's not terrorism, then what is the definition?"

JakaAmalgam · 01-18-2009, 12:03 AM

Besides the fact if there was a time constraint, there's nothing wrong with torture...

Vodka23 · 07-01-2009, 05:16 AM

Tell him that if he doesn't tell the truth, they'll be more severe torture later. Problem solved.

Morsmordre · 07-02-2009, 12:52 AM

idk, if you aren't going to talk under extreme torture, when will you lol? Or at least that's how yours truly works.

About the status of torture, I personally see nothing morally against it...for Christ's sake they want to kill innocent civilians so I really don't care if you beat, mutilate, rape, gouge eyes out, even kill these terrorists. If they want to kill someone who has never done anything to them, I couldn't care less how we treat them.

That being said what I do care about is the hypocrisy aspect to torture. I am not very familiar with my history but I think we signed and spearheaded some sort of agreement that banned the unequivocal use of torture and made it illegal for all other nations to do so under penalty of international law. I understand this law because our people are in the right (usually) and aren't out to harm innocents (usually). However, if we want to maintain face we can't expect from other countries what we cannot expect from ourselves. I am sure that our opponents also feel that they "are in the right (usually) and aren't out to harm innocents (usually)". To put it in a simple analogy, if a dad told his kids not to do drugs and then was arrested for drug possession, what type of message will that send to his kids? Or I guess a better analogy (since torture isn't wrong) would be if a dad told his kids not to drink milk or else you'll die and drank milk in front of the kids...what would that send to the kids about the dangers of milk? Hint: there are none

So yeah, that was a bit of a ramble, but I denounce torture not for the emotional aspect, but instead for the hypocrisy aspect.

baller4lyfe · 07-02-2009, 03:38 AM

international law says torture is inappropriate at any time and under any circumstances whatsoever. Right, so IL would still say the same thing when the entire earth and its people is at stake at being abolished when a nuke operative expert set a detonate under the earth? IL would change in a heartbeat and say forget it, are you kidding?! i just had to say that to look nice! now its business! so there you have it, law is man-made, hence legal positivism