Ticking time bomb scenario

The ticking bomb scenario is a fallacy. You have a guy in custody. How do you “know” that there is a ticking bomb about to detonate? How do you “know” that this is the person who has that information? Ultimately you can’t “know” those things. You may highly suspect that someone has information, so then you green light waterboarding suspects. How do the authorities know you haven’t planted a bomb in downtown Chicago about to go off? They’ll have to torture you just to make sure. In at least one case

Bao, Ke Xin (Ben) Professor Davis English 1A 19 July 2015 Permissible Evil? Throughout the course of human history, enemy combatants of the defeated forces were generally taken as war prisoners, often expected to confront brutal tortures or agonizing executions. Such trend managed to steer its way into recent human history. Some of the most atrocious crimes committed against mankind were witnessed during the second World War where prisoners of war underwent unthinkable torture procedures either

global terror is outstanding. With the use of the ticking time bomb scenario, some make a desirable case that in special circumstances, there is a right to torture individuals implicated is acts of mass violence. Yet many would still argue that there are an array of inconsistencies hidden within the ticking bomb scenario and there are no circumstances where torture can be morally permissible, no matter what the consequences may hold. The ticking time bomb

under certain circumstances from consequential grounds. Bufacchi and Arrigo (2006) believed that if it is the lesser of two evils and is better to avoid the great one. The ticking bomb scenario was acknowledged to describe the situation in which using torture so as to gain the information about the location of the ticking bomb from the terrorist. In examining, using torture can be regarded as the lesser evil so as then to prevent the greater evil. To develop this argument,

very controversial topic. It all started in Greece when slaves would get tortured to collect evidence for trials, crimes against the state, and treason. Not long after, the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazis’ began to use torture as well. During this time witnesses noticed what was going on and did not agree with it but had no way of stopping it. All across the world, a group of nations came together to make an agreement in opposition to torture. Not all nations were agreeing to not allow torture in

torture. However, in compelling and threatening circumstances it may be allowed. Here is the reason, Many terrorist organizations take advantage of the situation and make an entryway for an assault. Without the usage of torture, it would take extra time and open doors for another strike later on. Through the use of torture, the CIA gained useful data by interrogating two terrorist group leaders, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, both of them gave significant data, after agents used torture.

people will look at scenarios differently when one scenario is a bombing mission where the soldier is on the plane dropping bombs and the other is to hear that same soldier killed five innocent girls and their mother (Harris). There is no doubt there will be women and little girls killed from those bombs dropped at such high points in the sky (Harris). It is just a matter of perspective and how it may sound to the people of the world. Also, it is a fact that the terrorist group, Al Qaeda tells its

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks

between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it

provided in these four articles, I have not only become aware of the issues, but I have also formed my own opinion.       According to Michael Levins, “The Case for Torture”, over time there have been occasions in which torture is seen as simply essential and tolerable. One claim Levin uses in his article is an atomic bomb attack made by terrorists. If the suspect is caught and in police custody, the question is “are the officers suppose to just stick to protocol or should they be doing anything possible