Summary Of Should The Ticking Bomb Prisoner By Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz begins his article “ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured” by questioning whether one person can be tortured to save the lives of many others. Dershowitz displays both sides of the argument before shifting the question. Dershowitz asserts that the question is not if torture should be used on a ticking bomb terrorist, rather the question is whether the torture is done openly under a legal framework or secretly and illegally. He then simplifies the conflict to the prioritization of values. While the argument that Dershowitz constructs seems to leave very little room for disagreement, there are ways in which to collapse his entire premise. By broadening the argument, Dershowitz’s entire claim can be avoided. Dershowitz

The first option Dershowitz brings is to allow security services to continue to use torture in a “twilight zone which is outside the realm of law.” The second option is to claim that the state is lawful and doesn’t allow torture while turning a blind eye to the torture occurring behind closed doors. The third option, clearly the choice preferred by Dershowitz, is the road of truth. It is the road of transparency which creates a framework for torture to limit it and prevent terrorism. The fourth option is simply to have no torture whatsoever and allowing “preventable terrorist acts to occur.” Dershowitz rejects this option immediately on the premise that any democracy would demand an act of terror such as the attacks of 9/11 be prevented if at all

Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove. In a democracy, we want our government to represent us. We don’t want any actions taken with which we disapprove. These decisions cannot be made about actions done in secrecy. Regarding this variance, Dershowitz demands constancy. He states that if an action is necessary, than it should be legalized but if it is not legalized, don’t do