Torture as Interrogation: The Ticking Time Bomb Debate
This paper examines the ethics and legality of torture as an interrogation technique, focusing on Charles Krauthammer's 2005 essay "The Truth about Torture" and its proposed exceptions to the Detainee Treatment Act. Drawing on Rodley's definition of torture under international law, the paper explores the "ticking time bomb" scenario as a moral justification for coercive interrogation in extreme circumstances. It analyzes Krauthammer's rhetorical strategy, his target audience, and his critique of Senator McCain's position, while weighing arguments for and against permitting torture when mass casualties are at stake. The paper concludes that torture may be conditionally justified in extreme situations but must remain prosecutable as a crime.
- Introduction: Defining Torture and Its Legal Context: Torture defined; international prohibition and resurgent debate
- Krauthammer's Argument and the Detainee Treatment Act: Krauthammer proposes two exceptions to the DTA
- The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario: Moral dilemma when mass destruction versus torture
- Rhetorical Strategy and the 9/11 Appeal: Krauthammer's audience targeting and persuasive weaknesses
- Conclusion: Conditional Justification and Legal Accountability: Torture conditionally justified but must remain prosecutable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds the argument in a concrete primary source — Krauthammer's published essay — allowing the paper to move between rhetorical analysis and ethical evaluation without losing focus.
- Acknowledges the genuine moral dilemma at the heart of the debate rather than presenting a one-sided position, which strengthens the credibility of its conditional conclusion.
- Connects rhetorical strategy to audience analysis, noting how Krauthammer tailored his argument to politically engaged, affluent readers — a sophisticated observation for a short paper.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates rhetorical analysis applied to a policy argument. Rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with Krauthammer, the writer examines how his essay is constructed — its target audience, its emotional appeals (the 9/11 reference), and its long-term persuasive weaknesses — before arriving at an independent normative conclusion. This two-layer approach (what the argument says versus how it works) is a useful model for analytical writing in ethics or political science.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional and legal frame (Rodley), introduces Krauthammer's position and the DTA, then layers in the ticking time bomb dilemma via Smith. It pivots to a rhetorical critique of Krauthammer's 9/11 appeal and its limitations, and closes with a conditional personal position. The structure moves logically from definition → policy context → moral scenario → rhetorical critique → conclusion, making it easy to follow despite its brevity.
Introduction: Defining Torture and Its Legal Context
Rodley (2000) defines torture as an authorized interrogation technique under which a person is deliberately harmed in order to force him to say or do something. Despite being forbidden by international law through twentieth-century legal prohibitions, the act of torture continues — sometimes covertly, sometimes openly. This issue has resurfaced due to the growing fear surrounding the War on Terror and the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The problem can be examined in greater detail through the lens of the "ticking time bomb" theory.
Krauthammer's Argument and the Detainee Treatment Act
Charles Krauthammer, the syndicated columnist and conservative political commentator, argued in "The Truth about Torture" (2005), published in The Weekly Standard, that certain changes should be made to the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005. The DTA was introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and forbids all forms of cruel treatment of persons in United States custody. However, Krauthammer proposes two exceptions to this Act: the ticking time bomb scenario and the slower-fuse, high-value terrorist. Krauthammer deliberately avoided emotionally charged language, as his intended audience consisted of government policymakers and readers of The Weekly Standard — people active in politics, mature, financially comfortable, and therefore influential. His essay was directed not at the faint-hearted but at educated and strong-willed readers (Silverberg, 2013).
The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario
According to Smith (2007), if an interrogator faces a ticking time bomb emergency, arguments against torture become redundant and are effectively set aside. This is because the interrogator may believe that his actions serve the greater good and are free of malicious intent. In such a moment, the interrogator dismisses the moral objections to torture and concludes that the outcome of coercive questioning may justify the means. The dilemma the interrogator faces — allowing mass destruction or carrying out torture — makes the decision extraordinarily difficult.
Conclusion: Conditional Justification and Legal Accountability
By weighing both sides of this debate on whether torture may be allowed, I believe that its permissibility depends on the situation. When an immediate choice must be made and thousands of lives are at stake, torture may be justified — provided it is carried out with the right intention. In extreme cases, torture can be permitted, but decisions must not be made in advance of the incident itself. The government must prosecute torture as a crime and treat it as punishable whenever it occurs (Smith, 2007). A framework that acknowledges the moral complexity of coercive interrogation while maintaining clear legal accountability offers the most defensible path forward.
Bibliography
Krauthammer, Charles. "The Truth about Torture: It's time to be honest about doing terrible things." The Weekly Standard. 5 Dec 2005.
Rodley, N. S. The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, 2000.
Silverberg, E. (2013, July 14). A rhetorical analysis of Krauthammer's "The Truth about Torture." Retrieved from Maxima Scribe: https://maximascribe.com/2013/07/14/a-rhetorical-analysis-of-krauthammers-the-truth-about-torture/
Smith, K. (2007). Is torture ever morally acceptable? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not? E-International Relations Students.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.