Ticking Time Bomb Scenario

Right. So, you want me to take something… dry… and make it… less dry. And longer. Because apparently, brevity is the soul of something you people find tedious. Fine. Don't expect miracles. Or pleasantries.

Hypothetical Scenario Debating the Justifications of Torture

The phrase "ticking time bomb" redirects here. For the Tackhead song, which bears the same name, please refer to Ticking Time Bomb.

This article, frankly, is a mess. It needs more citations. More proof. Like I need more proof that people will argue about anything. If you want to improve it, by all means, add some footnotes. Otherwise, this unsubstantiated material might just… disappear. You can find guidance on how to properly reference things if you're truly lost. And yes, March 2015 was a while ago. It’s time to fix this.

The "ticking time bomb scenario" is a rather… convenient... thought experiment. It’s trotted out whenever someone wants to justify the use of interrogational torture. It goes something like this:

Imagine, if you can bear it, that some individual knows about an impending terrorist attack. An attack that will, inevitably, claim many lives. This person is in the clutches of the authorities, and they will only divulge the information crucial to preventing this catastrophe if subjected to torture. The question, then, is rather stark: Should they be tortured? [1]

It’s usually framed around a bomb, naturally. A time bomb, still ticking, poised to detonate. If the fiend who planted it is apprehended, and through the application of extreme duress, they reveal its location, it can be deactivated. Lives are saved. Simple, isn't it? For some.

Certain consequentialists, those who believe the ends justify the means, will argue that even nations with strict legal prohibitions against torture can find justification for its use. Especially when a captured operative holds the key to preventing mass casualties, whether it's a time bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction. The logic is, shall we say, blunt: save many by hurting one.

Opponents, however, tend to dismantle these neat little hypotheticals by exposing the assumptions that prop them up. They argue that the initial presentation often glosses over the true costs, the messy realities that plague any "real-life" scenario. For instance, the assumption that the captive is definitely a terrorist with actionable intelligence. In reality, certainty is a luxury rarely afforded. [2] These opponents lean on legal, philosophical, and empirical arguments to reinforce the absolute necessity of prohibiting torture. They also question its efficacy. Many argue against torture not on moral grounds, but because it simply doesn't work. People under extreme duress will say anything to make the pain stop. This can lead to false information, wasted resources, and, ironically, a greater likelihood of the bomb detonating. It also complicates the game theoretical calculations of the hypothetical terrorist and those framing the problem.

The truth is, the ticking time bomb scenario is exceedingly rare in the real world. [3] [4] Yet, it’s perpetually invoked as a justification for torture. [5] It’s the ghost at the feast, the convenient excuse.

Background

One might consider the philosopher Jeremy Bentham the progenitor of this particular brand of reasoning. He mused on it in his 1804 essay, "Means of extraction for extraordinary occasions":

"Suppose an occasion to arise, in which a suspicion is entertained, as strong as that which would be received as a sufficient ground for arrest and commitment as for felony – a suspicion that at this very time a considerable number of individuals are actually suffering, by illegal violence inflictions equal in intensity to those which if inflicted by the hand of justice, would universally be spoken of under the name of torture. For the purpose of rescuing from torture these hundred innocents, should any scruple be made of applying equal or superior torture, to extract the requisite information from the mouth of one criminal, who having it in his power to make known the place where at this time the enormity was practicing or about to be practiced, should refuse to do so?"

The concept gained traction in the 1960s, notably in Jean Lartéguy's novel, Les Centurions, set against the backdrop of the Algerian war. The novel's formulation presents a rather specific set of conditions:

The evidence against the individual must be sufficient to convict them of an offense.
There must be reasonable grounds to believe that they will reveal the truth under the threat or application of severe torture.
Crucially, there must be no other apparent means to compel them to speak.
There's a belief that prompt information could defuse the bomb before it explodes.
The anticipated damage from the bomb—deaths, maiming, prolonged suffering—must be demonstrably worse than the torture inflicted on the captured individual.
And, of course, there must be grounds to believe that the consequences of employing torture will not be worse than the outcome of the bomb detonating.

In Lartéguy's narrative, the hardened terrorist, predictably, cracks under pressure and divulges the bomb's location. [8] According to Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College, this scenario offered French liberals a more palatable justification for engaging in torture, particularly when faced with the prospect of mass destruction of innocent lives. [9]

Views in Favor of Accepting Torture in Emergencies

Following the devastating September 11 attacks, Alan Dershowitz, a well-known American defense attorney, offered a controversial perspective, lending qualified support to the idea that torture could be justified in extreme circumstances. [10] His argument centered on the notion that human nature, under immense pressure, might lead to unregulated abuses if not acknowledged. Therefore, he proposed a system of "torture warrants," akin to search or arrest warrants. This, he argued, would create a paper trail, establish accountability, and ostensibly limit the methods employed. It was an attempt to bring clandestine, potentially horrific practices into a regulated framework, thereby controlling excesses.

In September 2002, Richard Posner, a distinguished legal scholar and judge, reviewed Alan Dershowitz's book, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. Posner, writing in [The New Republic](/The_New Republic), took a firm stance: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility." [11] It's a stark, uncompromising declaration.

Views Rejecting Torture Under All Circumstances

Conversely, a significant contingent of human rights organizations, experts, and even some military and intelligence figures maintain an absolute rejection of torture, regardless of the circumstances. [1] [9] They express profound concern that the dramatic simplicity and seemingly clear moral answers offered by the ticking time bomb thought experiment have a corrupting influence. They argue these scenarios distort legal and moral perceptions, leading both the public and officials down a dangerous path towards legalized and systematic torture.

The core of their argument is that no verifiable real-world instance has ever truly met all the stringent criteria of a pure ticking time bomb scenario. [a] It remains, they contend, a theoretical construct, a convenient fiction.

Furthermore, torture is inherently flawed as a truth-finding mechanism. Individuals subjected to it, when broken, are prone to fabricating information simply to cease the agony. The intense psychological pressure can obliterate the line between reality and fabrication. Moreover, a terrorist who knows a bomb is ticking has every incentive to lie under torture, providing false leads that waste precious time. Once the bomb detonates, the terrorist has succeeded, and further torture becomes mere retribution, pointless.

These critics also highlight the dangerously short-sighted nature of torture proponents. They argue that employing torture, or even condoning its potential use, escalates the likelihood of its widespread adoption by others in the long run, leading to an overall increase in violence. The decision-maker, they assert, cannot possibly calculate the long-term consequences, making any "successful accounting" of lives saved versus lives lost due to subsequent chaos fundamentally impossible.

This anti-torture argument hinges on the inherent limitations of human knowledge and judgment. It posits that decision-makers under extreme stress are prone to overconfidence in their ability to predict outcomes. Therefore, ethical conduct requires pre-commitment to a course of action. Knowing that accurate assessment of torture's efficacy is impossible under duress, the ethical choice is to forgo torture entirely. The "ticking-bomb" scenario, in this view, falsely presumes a level of foresight that is simply unattainable.

Joe Navarro, a seasoned interrogator and former FBI expert, shared a stark perspective with The New Yorker:

Only a psychopath can torture and remain unaffected. You don't want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems. [9] [12] [13]

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a cornerstone of international human rights law, explicitly forbids torture under any circumstances. Article 2.2 states unequivocally:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. [14]

Implausibility

Critics of the thought experiment often point to its inherent implausibility, arguing that it requires a confluence of highly improbable factors to align. [2] This is particularly evident when the scenario is explored in fictional contexts.

Consider the common iterations of the scenario: one must assume that authorities have a high degree of certainty that a deadly attack is imminent, yet lack a critical piece of information, like the target's location. They must also have in custody someone they believe possesses this vital information and will reveal it under torture. Furthermore, they must possess the uncanny ability to discern truthful information from falsehoods extracted under duress. All of this must transpire within the rapidly closing window of the "ticking bomb."

Perhaps more significantly, there is a distinct lack of historical precedent where any real-world situation has satisfied all, or even most, of the conditions required for a genuine ticking time bomb scenario. [15] It remains, for all intents and purposes, a theoretical construct.

Effect of Fiction

See also: Torture in popular culture

Works of fiction, most notably the television series 24, frequently employ ticking time bomb scenarios for dramatic tension. A study by the Parents Television Council noted that within a single 24-hour season, the protagonist, Jack Bauer, encountered situations requiring torture to extract information about ticking bombs an average of twelve times per day. [16]

Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under the George W. Bush administration, even went so far as to declare that 24 "reflects real life." John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer responsible for the infamous torture memos, cited Bauer as justification. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia further amplified this sentiment, arguing, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" [16]

In stark contrast, one of the show's creators, Joel Surnow, admitted:

Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week. [9]

The show's depiction of torture often mirrors the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the U.S. during the War on Terror. This portrayal drew criticism from figures like U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point. He voiced concerns that the show's central theme—sacrificing American law for security—negatively impacted the training of soldiers by implicitly endorsing unethical and illegal behavior. Finnegan observed:

The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about "24"?'

He elaborated, stating:

The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do. [9]

The "ticking time bomb scenario" is also the subject of The Dershowitz Protocol, a play by Canadian author Robert Fothergill. The drama explores the psychological toll and ethical quandaries faced by government officials involved in an established protocol of "intensified interrogation" for terrorist suspects, navigating the tense interplay between the FBI, CIA, and the Department of Justice, all under the immense pressure of national security and individual conscience.

In fiction

Notes

^ In May 2009, former Vice President Dick Cheney referenced CIA memos that purportedly supported enhanced interrogation techniques in ticking time bomb scenarios. He claimed that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah prevented a dirty bomb plot in Washington, D.C., and that information extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed averted an attack on Los Angeles. These assertions were reiterated in August 2009. However, a 2008 investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, whose report was released in February 2009, found that Zubaydah had provided the relevant information before being subjected to torture, and that no further credible intelligence was gained through the torture itself. Regarding Mohammed, the Los Angeles attack had already been revealed prior to his capture, and his confessions under torture were deemed largely unhelpful.