Quite apart from the fact that there is a general agreement that torture is morally wrong, the prohibition of torture is also enshrined in fundamental conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. From a moral point of view, we agree that torture is ‘evil in itself’ (mala in se) : the act is inherently wrong by nature, independent of the law. This means that it is not required to base it on a legal rule to prove that torture is wrong, because the action is wrong in essence.
The prohibition of torture is universally accepted as a peremptory norm of international law (ius cogens) and it is very well safeguarded. The Convention against Torture (CAT), for example, states …show more content…
He claimed that Zubaydah had revealed significant information with regard to the apprehension of two al Qaeda leaders. However, this information was already known according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Moreover, some of the information was revealed without the use of coercion. Bush also claimed that Abu Zubaydah identified another al Qaeda leader upon being subjected to the mentioned CIA treatment. Since the critical information was obtained from tip offs, this claim is also doubtful.
The assumptions and unreality of the ticking time bomb scenario has been emphasized by academic opponents. One of the reasons is that the ticking time bomb scenario stipulates that the interrogator knows that a bomb is ticking somewhere. But reality rarely presents such clear situations. ‘‘The decision of whether to torture or not will in all likelihood have to be made under a much more uncertain set of circumstances’’, as Kim Lane Scheppele discusses.
Furthermore, the ticking time bomb scenario assumes that the authorities have captured the right person. Regarding this aspect of the case, we can put aside any concerns about the possibility that the authorities have the wrong person. This assumption excludes the possibility of torturing an innocent
The prohibition of torture is universally accepted as a peremptory norm of international law (ius cogens) and it is very well safeguarded. The Convention against Torture (CAT), for example, states …show more content…
He claimed that Zubaydah had revealed significant information with regard to the apprehension of two al Qaeda leaders. However, this information was already known according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Moreover, some of the information was revealed without the use of coercion. Bush also claimed that Abu Zubaydah identified another al Qaeda leader upon being subjected to the mentioned CIA treatment. Since the critical information was obtained from tip offs, this claim is also doubtful.
The assumptions and unreality of the ticking time bomb scenario has been emphasized by academic opponents. One of the reasons is that the ticking time bomb scenario stipulates that the interrogator knows that a bomb is ticking somewhere. But reality rarely presents such clear situations. ‘‘The decision of whether to torture or not will in all likelihood have to be made under a much more uncertain set of circumstances’’, as Kim Lane Scheppele discusses.
Furthermore, the ticking time bomb scenario assumes that the authorities have captured the right person. Regarding this aspect of the case, we can put aside any concerns about the possibility that the authorities have the wrong person. This assumption excludes the possibility of torturing an innocent