Terrorism And Torture

A thought-provoking volume examining the complex factors contributing to terrorism and torture, and the links between those two heinous behaviours.

A provocative philosophical investigation into the ethics of torture, The War on Terror, and making tough choices in exceptional circumstances. The general consensus among philosophers is that the use of torture is never justified. In Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture, Fritz Allhoff demonstrates the weakness of the case against torture; while allowing that torture constitutes a moral wrong, he nevertheless argues that, in exceptional cases, it represents the lesser of two evils. Allhoff does not take this position lightly. He begins by examining the way terrorism challenges traditional norms, discussing the morality of various practices of torture, and critically exploring the infamous ticking time-bomb scenario. After carefully considering these issues from a purely philosophical perspective, he turns to the empirical ramifications of his arguments, addressing criticisms of torture and analyzing the impact its adoption could have on democracy, institutional structures, and foreign policy. The crucial questions of how to justly authorize torture and how to set limits on its use make up the final section of this timely, provocative, and carefully argued book.

This book seeks to demonstrate how rules not only guide a variety of practices within international politics but also contribute to the chaos and tension on the part of agents in light of the structures they sustain. Four central themes- practice, legitimacy, regulation, and responsibility- reflect different dimensions of a rule governed political order. The volume does not provide a single new set of rules for governing an increasingly chaotic international system. Instead, it provides reflections upon the way in which rules can and cannot deal with practices of violence. While many assume that "obeying the rules" will bring more peaceful outcomes, the chapters in this volume demonstrate that this may occur in some cases, but more often than not the very nature of a rule governed order will create tensions and stresses that require a constant attention to underlying political dynamics. This wide-ranging volume will be of great interest to students of International Law, International Security and IR theory.

This book considers the theoretical, policy and empirical arguments relevant to the debate concerning the legalisation of interrogational torture. Torturing Terrorists examines, as part of a consequentialist analysis, the nature and impact of torture and the implications of its legal regulation on individuals, institutions and wider society. In making an argument against the use of torture, the book engages in a wide ranging interdisciplinary analysis of the arguments and claims that are put forward by the proponents and opponents of legalised torture. This book examines the ticking bomb hypothetical and explains how the component parts of the hypothetical are expansively interpreted in theory and practice. It also considers the effectiveness of torture in producing ‘ticking bomb’ and ‘infrastructure’ intelligence and examines the use of interrogational torture and coercion by state officials in Northern Ireland, Algeria, Israel, and as part of the CIA’s ‘High Value Detainee’ interrogation programme. As part of an empirical slippery slope argument, this book examines the difficulties in drafting the text of a torture statute; the difficulties of controlling the use of interrogational torture and problems such a law could create for state officials and wider society. Finally, it critically evaluates suggestions that debating the legalisation of torture is dangerous and should be avoided. The book will be of interest to students and academics of criminology, law, sociology and philosophy, as well as the general reader.

Experts in the intelligence community say that torture is ineffective. Yet much of the public appears unconvinced: surveys show that nearly half of Americans think that torture can be acceptable for counterterrorism purposes. Why do people persist in supporting torture—and can they be persuaded to change their minds? In Tortured Logic, Erin M. Kearns and Joseph K. Young draw upon a novel series of group experiments to understand how and why the average citizen might come to support the use of torture techniques. They find evidence that when torture is depicted as effective in the media, people are more likely to approve of it. Their analysis weighs variables such as the ethnicity of the interrogator and the suspect; the salience of one’s own mortality; and framing by experts. Kearns and Young also examine who changes their opinions about torture and how, demonstrating that only some individuals have fixed views while others have more malleable beliefs. They argue that efforts to reduce support for torture should focus on convincing those with fluid views that torture is ineffective. The book features interviews with experienced interrogators and professionals working in the field to contextualize its findings. Bringing empirical rigor to a fraught topic, Tortured Logic has important implications for understanding public perceptions of counterterrorism strategy.

This book seeks to demonstrate how rules not only guide a variety of practices within international politics but also contribute to the chaos and tension on the part of agents in light of the structures they sustain. Four central themes- practice, legitimacy, regulation, and responsibility- reflect different dimensions of a rule governed political order. The volume does not provide a single new set of rules for governing an increasingly chaotic international system. Instead, it provides reflections upon the way in which rules can and cannot deal with practices of violence. While many assume that "obeying the rules" will bring more peaceful outcomes, the chapters in this volume demonstrate that this may occur in some cases, but more often than not the very nature of a rule governed order will create tensions and stresses that require a constant attention to underlying political dynamics. This wide-ranging volume will be of great interest to students of International Law, International Security and IR theory.

The book addresses a dilemma at the heart of the 'War on Terror': is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of innocent civilians; the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario?The book first analyzes the ticking bomb dilemma as a pure moral one, facing the individual would-be torturer. A 'never-say-never' utilitarian position is pitted against a 'minimal absolutist' view that some acts are never justifiable, and that torture is one such act.It then looks at the issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in extreme situations: when, how, and whom to torture; the institutionalization of torture; its effects on society; and its efficacy in combatting terrorism in the shorter and longer runs.Four models of legalized torture are next examined-including current ones in Israel and the USA and the idea of torture warrants.Finally, related legal issues are analyzed; among them the lawfulness of coercive interrogation under international law and attempts to allow torture 'only' after the fact, for instance by applying the criminal law defence of necessity.A 'minimal absolutist' view - under which torture, whether by private individuals or by state officials, must be prohibited absolutely in law, policy and practice, and allowing no exceptions for ticking bomb situations - is defended throughout.

This book asks whether just war theory and its rules for determining when war is justified remains adequate to the challenges posed by contemporary developments. Some argue that the nature of contemporary war makes these rules obsolete. By carefully examining the phenomena of intervention, terrorism, and torture from a number of different perspectives, the essays in this book explore this complex set of issues with insight and clarity.