This interview transcript from 2003 shows a debate between noted author and Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch. The focus of the debate is whether to support an absolute prohibition on torture or whether to allow torture in limited “ticking-bomb” situations.
Public debate about U.S. torture policy has been distorted by a preoccupation with the “ticking bomb scenario.” This scenario requires the unlikely conjunction of many improbable conditions. Consequently, the debate about torture should not be reduced to a debate about ticking bombs
Justifying torture by citing the ticking-bomb scenario is irresponsible. It is highly unlikely that the myriad conditions required for a ticking-bomb scenario would ever be met
The hypothetical "ticking bomb scenario" has been used as a justification for torture in exceptional cases. The ticking-bomb scenario should be rejected because of its unreal character. Pragmatic reasons for an absolute legal ban on torture also support an absolute moral ban on torture
Arrigo’s arguments against torture during interrogations show that it fails as a counterterrorism tactic and leads to breakdowns in key institutions like health care, biomedical research, police, judiciary, and military
Wolfendale argues that the training necessary to produce a torturer in the ticking bomb scenario challenges the legitimacy of this justification for torture. Supporters of the ticking bomb argument must consider what torture involves in reality, not just in a hypothetical scenario
As terror organizations grow in size and complexity, uncovering terrorist plans by interrogating group members is increasingly urgent. It is more and more difficult to adhere to international norms to protect citizens from grave danger while continuing to support individual freedoms.
When there is a choice between saving the life of an innocent person and not harming a terrorist or other wrongdoer, it is wrong to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer. Each individual’s interest should count equally. By these standards, torture is permissible if innocent lives will be saved.
Ginbar argues in favor of the absolute legal prohibition on torture. Once a state sanctions torture, difficult issues of how to enforce and regulate torture arise. Ginbar includes an examination of the US and Israeli models of coercive interrogation.
