"Torture, Truth Serum, and Ticking Bombs: Toward a Pragmatic Perspective on Coercive Interrogation"
(Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2008)
Kenneth Lasson (University of Baltimore School of Law)
The 'War on Terror' has prompted a great deal of discussion about the use of torture as a means of extracting information from those suspected of having perpetrated past acts of violence or planning future ones. It seems increasingly difficult to adhere to international norms governing a nation's moral and legal obligations to protect its citizens from grave danger while continuing to support individual freedoms. Among the more difficult questions to emerge from those that were far-fetched (if not unthinkable) just a few decades ago is how to handle the so-called ticking-bomb scenario. As terror organizations grow in size and complexity, uncovering terrorist plans by interrogating a group member has become critical, and the need to gather intelligence in order to save lives increasingly urgent.
"Do Norms Reduce Torture?"
(Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 38)
by Michael J. Gilligan (New York University, Department of Politics) and
Nathaniel H. Nesbitt.
This article tests the proposition that norms alter
state behavior with respect to the expanding international norm against
torture from 1985 through 2003. It finds no evidence that
the spreading of the international norm against torture, measured by
the percentage of countries in the world that have acceded to the UN
Convention Against Torture, has lead to any reduction in torture
according to a variety of measures.
HT to National Security Advisors.
"The Jaundiced Eye of the Beholder: The Case for an Objective Definition of Torture"
(Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Forthcoming)
by Michael W. Lewis (Ohio Northern University - Pettit College of Law).
After discussing current misconceptions about intelligence gathering
and coercion that are common to all sides of the torture debate, this
article describes the reality of intelligence collection. It then
reviews the wide range of competing definitions of torture; those
provided by international courts, those proposed by commentators and
those implemented by governments around the world. Some proposed
definitions are so broad that practically any form of interrogation
would be illegal, others so narrow as to allow for a wide variety of
shockingly brutal techniques. People or governments
under pressure from terrorist attacks view the definition of "severe
pain and suffering" differently from those outside such a cauldron. The excesses that follow terrorism have generally later been regretted, but such regrets do little to comfort
the victims of these excesses.
This article proposes a solution. To prevent the definition of "severe
pain and suffering" from changing between September 10 and September 12, it recommends
tying the definition to pre-existing standards that are difficult to
manipulate and internally self-policing. HT to National Security Advisors.