A Ticking Time Bomb is Not Justification

I recently saw new interview clips of Dick Cheney and he once again tried to justify torture with the “ticking time bomb” scenario: when you know a suspect has information that can prevent an imminent, serious threat. The theory is that this possibility is so compelling that we should allow torture to be legally permissible. My view of this line of reasoning is that if the circumstances are so dire, so terrible, that the person charged with extracting the information shouldn't care that torture is outlawed and that they will face legal consequences. If they still have concerns about such matters, then the event they're trying to prevent isn't sufficient justification. We need the illegality to act as a barrier to such behavior, especially since torture's effectiveness is not without doubt and we would increase the likelihood of our captured troops facing similar mistreatment. The argument is to prevent the unthinkable by allowing the unthinkable, and the unthinkable should never be sanctioned by law.

Gore Most Likely Would've Prevented 9/11

We know now that the information necessary to prevent the attacks of 9/11 was floating around our various intelligence agencies and it was primarily a lack of cooperation that led to it not being acted upon in time. Had Gore become president in 2000, he would not have have been guilty of the now infamous failure to heed the brief warning of Bin Laden's intention to attack with the U.S. With the president pressuring our agencies to look into this threat, the aforementioned failure to coordinate would most likely have been overcome and the plot exposed in time to prevent it. Of course, had that occurred, we'd probably never have learned about it, but many of the important security improvements (most notably the reinforcement of cockpit doors) would likely still have been implemented. Let this serve as a lesson to those who feel that ability and experience are somehow optional in executive positions.