Tick... tick... tick....

You know what's getting old? The old "Ticking Bomb Scenario" that is used by some to justify the use of torture in the War On Terror. Those who point to Jack Bauer of the TV show 24 use him as their poster boy, and use the hypothetical example of a bomb in an urban center in an effort to reclaim the right to torture from the dictators and despots of history.

In short, for the two of you who haven't heard this before, the "Ticking Bomb Scenario" goes like this:

Terrorists have planted a bomb in a highly populated urban setting. You capture someone who you just know has information that will allow you to find and deactivate said bomb. Isn't it worth it, then, to torture this captive, if torture will help save millions of innocent lives in this American city?

There are several things wrong with this point of view, ranging from the belief that "information" and "confessions" gained via torture are apparently unreliable and inaccurate, to the fact that such a scenario is extremely unlikely to occur in the first place.

Yet, let's set aside these arguments. Let's assume for the sake of this blog entry that torture does yield useful information, accurate confessions, and that ticking bombs are being placed in major cities on a regular basis. I still say that our government should still officially state and codify into law that torture is never okay (and we'll set aside this particular government's twisting of the definition of torture as to make the word practically meaningless; let's pretend, again for the sake of this argument, that we all agree what torture is).

Let's take a look at an ill-fitting analogy that still might illustrate my point:

My friend starts going into convulsions whilst watching The Daily Show. He passes out, foaming at the mouth. So I carry him into the car (I'm strong) and speed to the emergency room.

Yeah, the speed limit is 30, but I'm going 85. I also go through a few red lights. But you know what? I've decided that I'd rather have the friend alive than worry about breaking some laws. However, if I did get a ticket in the mail from one of those Red Light Cameras, I'd pay the fine. I chose to break the law; I'm not demanding that the law be changed, that citizens get to decide when they want to obey traffic lights and when they don't. Sure, I might argue in court that I was running red lights "for a good cause", but that at best would be an extenuating circumstance. I still would not expect the law to be changed.

Same with torture. It's one thing for someone to decide, individually, that the ends justify that means, that one person is less important than the million in the ticking bomb scenario (aside: why the tick? Don't they use digital timers? WTF?); it's another vastly different thing to actually codify the use of torture, to give it the official Federal Government Stamp of Approval.

No.

Torture is wrong and should be punished, and those who torture should know that going in. It might actually make it less likely to occur, tick or no tick. If someone decided to torture to save millions, fine. He then, however, should still be held accountable for this illegal act in a court of law. If he was right, and he got useful information that saved millions (in my example, I ran the red lights and sped, and my friend was saved in the emergency room as a result), fine... let that be an extenuating circumstance that he'd use in the hope that the court would be lenient on him. If, however, he was wrong... if in fact he was torturing an innocent person, someone who had no information.... well then. The law would be clear.

The US of A simply cannot give the official okie dokie to torture and expect to win the hearts and minds of our own citizens, let alone the vast unwashed masses of the rest of the world. By becoming what we claim to abhor we debase ourselves and lose what little moral authority we have left.