YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Do the ends justify the means? Are men like Colonel Nathan R. Jessep and Jack Bauer the silent pillar which hold up our society - protecting our right to call the things they do monstrous?

Or is it a vicious cycle, and only by removing ourselves from this cruel, dark world can we hope to end it?

Or is compromise the key?

[Froth]

I dont particularly care for either answer. Ticking time bomb scenarios, like the situations jack Baur comes across 6 times a day, almost never happen, but if they did, then yea, Id probably torture him. But otherwise, everyone has rights, and I wouldnt torture anyone even if every last resource is used up. Only in imminent danger could I ever feel justified in torture.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Err, I could have sworn I put up a third option there, and I can't find a way to add another. Oh well.

[wigginboy]

I believe that sacrificing the rights of one or a few to protect those of many or the whole, this is far more advantageous than assuming that a dangerous criminal still has rights. I believe that once a person has committed a serious crime, they have relinquished all rights they had. If a man kills someone or hurts or rapes or steals from a person, that individual obviously had no respect for their rights, so what rights do they have when answering to the crime? In my opinion (and that is all it is) criminals should not have rights. Whatever measures can be used to gain info should be used.

[Froth]

And this is where the classic argument comes in. Then what separates us from them? Doesnt that bring us down to their level?

Before anyone brings that up, Id just like to say 'hell no.'

Acts dont matter as much as motives.

[Right]

As to the original question posed: torture is never acceptable, ever. Period. There is no middle ground, no gray area.

Id probably torture him. [...]
I wouldnt torture anyone even if every last resource is used up.
Only in imminent danger could I ever feel justified in torture.

So are you for it or against it?

As for the "ticking time bomb" scenario: they NEVER happen. You know an attack is going to happen? You know that you don't have much time to stop it? You know you have the right guy? You know he's guilty? You know even if you get the information you need out of him, you will be able to stop it in time? You know he will not feed you false information? You know there is no other way to prevent the attack? You know there is no other way to get the information?

I believe that once a person has committed a serious crime, they have relinquished all rights they had.

All their rights? Line them up for the electric chair, then. What qualifies as a serious crime? Who gets to decide?

If a man kills someone or hurts or rapes or steals from a person, that individual obviously had no respect for their rights, so what rights do they have when answering to the crime? In my opinion (and that is all it is) criminals should not have rights. Whatever measures can be used to gain info should be used.

What if he killed an attacker in self-defense? If he hurts someone he should forfeit all his rights? If he steals from someone? I guess we should kill all shoplifters, then.

[Syphon the Sun]

My favorite Seventh Circuit justice and former frontrunner for the US Supreme Court Justice Richard Posner said it best: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information. No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

[Right]

Mr. Posner seems to be assuming several things. How about this:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, and it can be guaranteed the bomb would go off otherwise, its detonation is imminent, the suspect in custody is the correct person, he is guilty, he actually knows information that can be used to stop it, this information can be obtained in time to stop the bomb, the information he gives up under torture is valid, there is no time to evacuate the area, and there is no other way to stop the bomb, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information. No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

Do you understand why all of these conditions need to be met for your time bomb scenario to be fulfilled? Otherwise torture is not a last resort. Are you suggesting this?

Furthermore, what if you have two people to torture? Is it still okay? What if it's 1,000? 1 million? How many people is it okay to torture to save New York? What about saving Buffalo? Or Podunk, Kansas?

[Froth]

As for the "ticking time bomb" scenario: they NEVER happen. You know an attack is going to happen? You know that you don't have much time to stop it? You know you have the right guy? You know he's guilty? You know even if you get the information you need out of him, you will be able to stop it in time? You know he will not feed you false information? You know there is no other way to prevent the attack? You know there is no other way to get the information?

I said almost never happen. But to say they have never once happened? Well thats ridiculous. How could you possible know that? Has a kid napper ever been caught, and then told the police the kid was still alive? Im sure. Thats the beginning of a ticking time bomb scenario. If the kids in imminent danger, then bam. Ticking time bomb. What if we had caught Osama before 9/11. We knew something was up that day. Many high up officials were told not to get on a plane that day before the first plane was hijacked, and if we werent sure, then we at least expected Osama to be behind it. If we got him to admit that he was behind it all. If given the chance now. Knowing the amount of lives at stake, would you have tortured Osama to find out more info? To hell with you if you didnt.

How much do you really know about the world of espionage? By the very nature of the business, Im guessing not a lot. The CIA however has a lot of experience. And if you are to ask anybody about ticking time bomb scenarios, ask the Director of the CIA. Im sure he would know a hell of a lot more than you do.

What if he killed an attacker in self-defense? If he hurts someone he should forfeit all his rights? If he steals from someone? I guess we should kill all shoplifters, then.

Now youre just being ridiculous, and are not benefiting the conversation whats so ever. You know thats not what he meant.

The only argument for the TTB (Ticking Time Bomb) scenario that I can really understand if how black or white it is. Its an easy to define scenario. But deciding whether a situation is or isnt in real life is a little more difficult. And thats where you would have to set parameters.

[Right]

I said almost never happen. But to say they have never once happened? Well thats ridiculous. How could you possible know that?

Show me one. Even one example.

Has a kid napper ever been caught, and then told the police the kid was still alive? Im sure. Thats the beginning of a ticking time bomb scenario. If the kids in imminent danger, then bam. Ticking time bomb.

They caught the kidnapper, but have no leads as to the kid's whereabouts whatsoever, and the kidnapper says the kid is in immediate, mortal danger, AND we believe him? How do we know he is not lying? How do we know he won't lie to us under torture?

What if we had caught Osama before 9/11. We knew something was up that day. Many high up officials were told not to get on a plane that day before the first plane was hijacked, and if we werent sure, then we at least expected Osama to be behind it. If we got him to admit that he was behind it all. If given the chance now. Knowing the amount of lives at stake, would you have tortured Osama to find out more info? To hell with you if you didnt.

Do you have sources for us knowing "something was up" or "many high officials" were told not to get on planes? People died to crash those planes, how do you know Osama would not die to protect the secret? Why wouldn't you just ground all air traffic?

What if he killed an attacker in self-defense? If he hurts someone he should forfeit all his rights? If he steals from someone? I guess we should kill all shoplifters, then.

Now youre just being ridiculous, and are not benefiting the conversation whats so ever. You know thats not what he meant.

That's what he said, and maybe you should let him speak for himself. It sounds ridiculous because it is. I used a reductio ad absurdum to show that Mr. Boy's position is unreasonable.

The only argument for the TTB (Ticking Time Bomb) scenario that I can really understand if how black or white it is. Its an easy to define scenario. But deciding whether a situation is or isnt in real life is a little more difficult. And thats where you would have to set parameters.

The problem is that the parameters of the "TTB" are self-contradictory. We can all agree that if it is used at all, torture should be the last resort, yes? So time must be of the essence, or we wouldn't be resorting to torture. However, time being short, the person being tortured can lead us on a wild goose chase until after the bomb goes off. This scenario doesn't exist. It's fiction.

[wigginboy]

I believe that once a person has committed a serious crime, they have relinquished all rights they had.

All their rights? Line them up for the electric chair, then. What qualifies as a serious crime? Who gets to decide?

In my opinion (and this IS just an opinion) a serious crime is a crime against humanity, ie: murder; sex crimes; crimes against children. I think that if a person has so much disrespect for humanity as a whole, there is no reason for them to live with other humans. I feel life in prison is sufficient for many crimes however those who obviously have no remorse for their deeds should not be allowed to live. I do understand the argument that as sinners we have no right to judge another's sin, but if no one among a group of peers has committed such a crime, I do believe they have sound reason to sentence a man to death. Ancient religious texts are full of examples of members of a community sentencing an individual to death under their god's laws. Judeo-Christian faiths use the Old Testament, which includes laws that compel the community to put anyone who commits a long line of crimes to death. One is murder. Another is rape.

[Right]

But this is about torture, remember? So what, you suspect a guy of raping a girl, so you torture him to find out... What, exactly? You are also already presuming his guilt.

[Froth]

Show me one. Even one example.

Confirm that its never happened even once.

How would I find such info? Maybe if I did some hard searching, or hacked onto the CIA website I could find something. But im not tech saavy, and there is to much junk on google. But even if it never does happen, then whats your problem saying okay, do it as long as its actually a TTB. It never happens anyways, right? You just dont like the idea behind it regardless of loss of life.

They caught the kidnapper, but have no leads as to the kid's whereabouts whatsoever, and the kidnapper says the kid is in immediate, mortal danger, AND we believe him? How do we know he is not lying? How do we know he won't lie to us under torture?

So you risk the chance of killing the kid because the kidnapper might be lying?

Do you have sources for us knowing "something was up" or "many high officials" were told not to get on planes? People died to crash those planes, how do you know Osama would not die to protect the secret? Why wouldn't you just ground all air traffic?

Go to google and look it up. There are hundreds and hundreds or different things Ive heard and read and watched about it. However, whatever link I give you, Im gonna guess youre going to say it doesnt look trustworthy, and is biased. So go to your own trusted sources and see what they say about pre 911 intelligence. Everyone knows that there was evidence leading up to it. Just not enough to confirm anything. Theres always chatter, and the CIA has a hard time filtering through it, finding out whats real. Just like Pearl Harbor, someone told Roosevelt the Japanese were going to attack Pearl harbor, but there wasnt enough evidence to support it, so America did nothing. And continued to do nothing even when the planes appeared on their radar.

Both FBI and CIA have said over and over that terrorist chatter before 911 was at an all time high. They knew something was going to happen, but they didnt have enough info to do anything about it. They wouldnt ground all air traffic because no one had made the connection the chatter was related to the possible hijackings the FBI had heard about. Shutting them down could have been a completely useless tactic that just sent fear through America. Lack of info is a terrible thing. Its what prevents terrorist attacks from not happening.

Maybe Osama would die to keep a secret. But the CIA seems to think that their 'alternate methods' for extracting info is working pretty well. Im sure theyre not doing it just for the Media attention.

That's what he said, and maybe you should let him speak for himself. It sounds ridiculous because it is. I used a reductio ad absurdum to show that Mr. Boy's position is unreasonable.

Alright. Ill stay out of this one.

The problem is that the parameters of the "TTB" are self-contradictory. We can all agree that if it is used at all, torture should be the last resort, yes?

Of course its a last resort.

So time must be of the essence, or we wouldn't be resorting to torture. However, time being short, the person being tortured can lead us on a wild goose chase until after the bomb goes off. This scenario doesn't exist. It's fiction.

And again, you seem to think that being lied to is worse than doing nothing at all.

And I believe it was Karuthhammer who made the point that there are actually two scenarios. The ticking time bomb and another. Ill see if I can find the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03108.html

And heres another good one. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 0rhqav.asp

[wigginboy]

But this is about torture, remember? So what, you suspect a guy of raping a girl, so you torture him to find out... What, exactly? You are also already presuming his guilt.

That's not what I said. I was talking in general terms there. I feel that there is evidence to suspect someone of a crime, there is reason to question. In my opinion, the transition from questioning to torture should only be crossed if you know a person knows something and they will not tell. Such as if a person has admitted the murder of a child but will not disclose the location of the body. Or if someone is connected to an abduction and will not divulge details. These situations warrant action and the severity of the action depends on the severity of the situation. I do not think torture is necessary in most situations but sometimes information is needed and there is sound reason to believe that waterboarding someone may allow that information to be disclosed. In the case of Guantanamo Bay detention centre, I feel action used against many of the prisoners there is excessive however, I only have news reports to go by. I am Canadian and we have no Patriot Act so I really have no need to worry about torture as a means of getting info from people but I am intrigued by those jurisdictions that do enforce such methods, as this is an excellent example of human rights violation. But is it really a violation of rights if someone has, say, blown a thousand people to bits by crashing a plane into a skyscraper?

[Froth]

Torture is too extreme a method for trying to find a body. That way over passes my boundaries. The only time I believe it can just justified is when loss of life is apparent and we know the knowledge to stop it, or at least knowledge that will help, is being withheld by someone we have custody of.

[Right]

Confirm that its never happened even once.

The burden lies on you, friend.

How would I find such info? Maybe if I did some hard searching, or hacked onto the CIA website I could find something. But im not tech saavy, and there is to much junk on google.

Or maybe you can't find it because it doesn't exist.

But even if it never does happen, then whats your problem saying okay, do it as long as its actually a TTB. It never happens anyways, right? You just dont like the idea behind it regardless of loss of life.

You're right, I don't like the idea behind it. I specifically listed my problems with it earlier.

So you risk the chance of killing the kid because the kidnapper might be lying?

We already have him. How is the kid in danger again?

Go to google and look it up.

No, you go look it up. It is not my responsibility to find your sources for you. If there are "hundreds and hundreds" of sources, it should be easy for you to find a reputable one, no? And go easy on the 9/11 truther stuff, your tin foil hat is showing.

And again, you seem to think that being lied to is worse than doing nothing at all.

Why does it have to be torture or nothing? Since I'm assuming we have the guy to torture in the first place, how did we catch him? Probably normal intelligence gathering and detective work.

And I believe it was Karuthhammer who made the point that there are actually two scenarios. The ticking time bomb and another. Ill see if I can find the article.

First of all, who is this Krauthammer guy? It's just an editorial. Why should I listen to him? Secondly, he cites two directors of the CIA as evidence for torture. Of course they are going to say it worked, it would reflect badly on them if they okayed the torture that got them nothing. Thirdly, the op-ed seems to imply that the Pelosi went along with it, so it was ok. It doesn't matter how many democrats agreed with it or not.

The link to the second article is broken. You have failed to address the problems with the "ticking time bomb," or defend your position in the least. Hey, I just got an idea. I think you should be able to torture someone for posting with abysmal spelling and grammar. That will definitely boost national security.

[Syphon the Sun]

Just a point of clarification (sorry that I haven't responded specifically to your post addressing me, but I've been short on time with the summer winding down and having to close a number of cases, recently): it isn't just the people who authorized the torture that have confirmed it worked. People who have specifically come out against the use of torture in all situations have noted the effectiveness of the programs used, including Obama's own national intelligence director. Surely you can't be arguing that he has something to lose by denying their effectiveness, considering how much more political capital the Obama team would gain from such an announcement.

[Froth]

Or maybe you can't find it because it doesn't exist.

I believe it is the height naivety to believe that TB dont exist. Have we ever caught a bomber before his bomb went off? Have we ever caught wind of an attack before it happened? How could you say such situations dont exist? I believe its the last resort part thats catching you right? That there are always unexplored options, that theres always another way to get info. In which case you do beleive in time bombs, just not that all resources could ever be exhausted.

We already have him. How is the kid in danger again?

Accomplice.

No, you go look it up. It is not my responsibility to find your sources for you. If there are "hundreds and hundreds" of sources, it should be easy for you to find a reputable one, no? And go easy on the 9/11 truther stuff, your tin foil hat is showing.

Im just lazy. However, how could you never heard any of this? Did you even watch the news after 911? People were tearing Bush, Cheney, Rice apart for ignoring threats and not warning the public. Do you really have so little faith in the Govt that you think that none of the agencies had a single clue that there was a coming attack of that magnitude? Even Clinton knew how big of a threat Osama was and was capable of something of this size and Bush laughed it off.

http://66.159.17.51/cooperativeresearch ... ledge.html

Why does it have to be torture or nothing? Since I'm assuming we have the guy to torture in the first place, how did we catch him? Probably normal intelligence gathering and detective work.

And you know what adds to that normal intelligence gathering and detective work and makes the CIA's job easier? More info from the guy caught...

First of all, who is this Krauthammer guy? It's just an editorial. Why should I listen to him?

You dont have too, but hes fairly well respected, and people listen to him. Not to mention his arguments are probably much better than mine.

Secondly, he cites two directors of the CIA as evidence for torture. Of course they are going to say it worked, it would reflect badly on them if they okayed the torture that got them nothing.

Personally to me it seems like there are a lot more people who say it works than it doesnt. And the people who say it doesnt are people who are just against for ethical reasons, and not so much effectiveness.

Thirdly, the op-ed seems to imply that the Pelosi went along with it, so it was ok. It doesn't matter how many democrats agreed with it or not.

I beleive that was more of a jab at Pelosi.

The link to the second article is broken.

My bad

You have failed to address the problems with the "ticking time bomb," or defend your position in the least.

And you have yet to prove to me that there is a problem with it or to convince me that if someone was in danger, I wouldnt utilize every possible action to get the info I need. I would rather spend my life in jail for torturing a terrorist that had info than allowing people to die.

Hey, I just got an idea. I think you should be able to torture someone for posting with abysmal spelling and grammar. That will definitely boost national security.

Great idea. But honestly, this is a forum, I could give a rats ass about whether it looks publishable or not. Im not going to change your opinion, your too high in opinion of yourself and your morals to ever sink as low as I would to save lives. Im arguing for my own sake mostly. I like seeing the other sides views. So that when I know my opinion actually matters, I can be well informed of both views. And im also a very opened minded person, makes me a bit of a flip flopper. But im always willing to change sides if the other sides argument is better and makes more sense.

[Right]

I believe it is the height naivety to believe that TB dont exist. Have we ever caught a bomber before his bomb went off? Have we ever caught wind of an attack before it happened? How could you say such situations dont exist?

I can say it hasn't happened until you show me it has.

I believe its the last resort part thats catching you right? That there are always unexplored options, that theres always another way to get info.

Correct.

In which case you do beleive in time bombs, just not that all resources could ever be exhausted.

Incorrect. It cannot happen. Again, if it is possible in the real world to have such a scenario, show me one.

Accomplice.

You are just piling more and more circumstances on top of this. So now, we have caught the kidnapper, but have no leads as to the kid's whereabouts whatsoever, and the kidnapper says the kid is in immediate, mortal danger, AND we believe him AND he has an accomplice? How do you know the guy is even the kidnapper? How do you know the "accomplice" isn't actually the kidnapper, and the guy you have doesn't know anything?

Im just lazy. However, how could you never heard any of this?

I didn't say I hadn't heard it. I said show me a reliable source. I've heard people say the earth is flat, it doesn't mean I believe it.

Do you really have so little faith in the Govt that you think that none of the agencies had a single clue that there was a coming attack of that magnitude?

On the contrary, do you have so little faith in the government that they knew what was coming and didn't prevent it?

http://66.159.17.51/cooperativeresearch ... ledge.html

Conspiracy BS. Get a domain, not some shady IP address.

And you know what adds to that normal intelligence gathering and detective work and makes the CIA's job easier? More info from the guy caught...

How do you find out if he's lying? Normal intelligence gathering and detective work.

You dont have too, but hes fairly well respected, and people listen to him. Not to mention his arguments are probably much better than mine.

I don't respect him, I don't know who he is. Columnist for the Washington Post does not make you an expert in politics, international affairs, human rights, or any other field relevant to this discussion. And if his arguments are better, use them yourself! If they are sound, I will listen.

Personally to me it seems like there are a lot more people who say it works than it doesnt.

Show me then, don't give me anecdotal evidence.

And you have yet to prove to me that there is a problem with it or to convince me that if someone was in danger, I wouldnt utilize every possible action to get the info I need. I would rather spend my life in jail for torturing a terrorist that had info than allowing people to die.

Well, it looks like you ignored that part of my earlier posts. I'll give it to you again. Here are (at least some of) the flaws in the "ticking time bomb" scenario:
How do you know the attack is going to happen?
How do you know time is short?
How do you know you have the right guy?
How do you know he is guilty?
How do you know he has information that you can use to stop the bomb?
How do you know even if you torture the information out of him, you can stop it in time?
How do you know he will not lie?
How do you know there is no other way to stop the bomb?
How do you know there is no other way to get the information?

Im not going to change your opinion, your too high in opinion of yourself and your morals to ever sink as low as I would to save lives. Im arguing for my own sake mostly. I like seeing the other sides views. So that when I know my opinion actually matters, I can be well informed of both views. And im also a very opened minded person, makes me a bit of a flip flopper. But im always willing to change sides if the other sides argument is better and makes more sense.

Here you have me wrong. I will change my opinion in a heartbeat if I find out I am wrong. I think I am right though, you just have to show me why my arguments are flawed, just as I am trying to show you how yours are.

I think this is what it boils down to:
Argument: Torture is only okay in a ticking time bomb scenario.
Rebuttal: Ticking time bomb scenarios cannot exist, therefore torture is never okay.

You have to show either a TTB really exists, or admit I am correct.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I think if you know somebody is guilty of a serious crime (murder, or collaboration with murder would qualify), then that person relinquishes the right to live, and he might as well tell something that could potentially save lives.

In the TV show 24. I know that scenarios like that are improbable, but Hostage crises happen ALL THE TIME. Bauer does what needs to be done to the bad guys so the good guys don't have to suffer (or, more likely, die). The pain of a criminal is worth less than the freedom and safety of an innocent.

[jotabe]

I think if you know somebody is guilty of a serious crime (murder, or collaboration with murder would qualify), then that person relinquishes the right to live, and he might as well tell something that could potentially save lives.

What happens if someone "knows" you are guilty of a serious crime?
The sistem of trials and appeals and habeas corpus and "innocent until proven otherwise" isn't there to make criminals' life easier, no matter how many people think so. It's there to protect you.

Regarding to the original question, yes, i would use force against that guy to get him to confess. But because i acknowledge i am not better than him.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Regarding to the original question, yes, i would use force against that guy to get him to confess. But because i acknowledge i am not better than him.

... interesting. good point. I suppose you WOULD be better than the criminal, though because HE has done some punishable crime and YOU have not. (I hope, lol)

I know innocent until proven guilty is to protect the actual innocent, but what about those who have a proven record of crime? I think that if somebody has a record of doing things like murder, and you are pretty sure he has just done it again, then the Courts don't need to go through another trial.

... Im probably starting a completely new argument on Capital Punishment, but I think that if a man is proven beyond doubt to have committed murder, then he no longer deserves the right to life. (unless that murder was in self-defense). His punishment serves not only to rid the world of another potential murderer, but to dissuade others from similar acts of evil.

[jotabe]

But you can't be convicted twice for the same crime. Even if he has a record, it's not enough you are "pretty sure". You have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. Again. The man might have changed his ways, you know. I agree that having a record makes him a suspect. But it is in no way evidence that he did it again.

Innocent regarding the current case.

Without needing to take it to murder, imagine RIAA gets ahold of your downloaded MP3s. They try you and you get fined for many thousands of dollars. So you learn your lesson, because that has left you bankrupted, and don't download anymore. But so it happens that the RIAA decides they need more money, or make some more exemplary punishments, and they check their list of previously sued people and find your name. So they sue you again, because since you did it once, you probably did it again. You wouldn't like to find a judge that thought the way you do

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I'm not saying I would create a case about a previous criminal just to punish him some more. I'm just saying I would be more likely to believe it if somebody accused him of stealing again, even if he denied it. Stealing music and murder, are, however, entirely separate cases. Anybody that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed murder deserves whatever they get.

[jotabe]

You realize, of course, that believing that someone did it or not is completely irrelevant. Strong convictions are nothing if unsupported by evidence.

Yes, i tend to agree that that people who commit murder, completely knowing and without being under duress, deserve whatever they get. But after society gives them what it's thought they deserve, it's kinda clean slate (while being a prime candidate to be suspect is a bother, it really isn't a further punishment).

Btw, while it's reasonable to propose death penalty for certain crimes under certain circumstances as a way to stop that one person from commiting them again. There isn't conclusive evidence though, about death penalty working as deterrent or working as a trigger of violence.

This is in a theoretical plane. Practically, you'd have to consider the fact that innocents seldomly are charged with a crime after due process, with no member of the jury having doubt about their guilt.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Yes, i tend to agree that that people who commit murder, completely knowing and without being under duress, deserve whatever they get. But after society gives them what it's thought they deserve, it's kinda clean slate (while being a prime candidate to be suspect is a bother, it really isn't a further punishment).

I think that it should NOT be clean slate. after being proven to committing so serious a crime, I think their status should change from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent. " only with the serious crimes like murder, mind you. not petty things like stealing from a candy shop.

[jotabe]

My dad used to tell me that the biggest criminal in the world started by stealing a needle.
In any case, if they won't get a fair trial (proving one's innocence is short of impossible), you are better off giving them the death penalty.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Yep. good.

[Psudo]

If an act of violence is in progress and the violent effects can be prevented with a lesser use of violence, the lesser use of violence is justified. For example, it is acceptable to kill one person to prevent that person's murder of two others. It is a net reduction in the violation of rights.

It is also moral to commit an amount of violence equal to that intended by another if it moves the resulting suffering to the party that initiated the violence. That is, if person A is trying to kill harmless person B it is acceptable to kill A. It's the same amount of violence, but it's morally preferable for the consequences to fall on those that created them.

In reality, these theoretical principles face three major complications:
1) You don't know much of anything for sure. You're always unsure of the honesty, capability, and predictability of real people and events.
2) Responsibility and jurisdiction. Is it your decision? Are conflicts of interest twisting your perspective? Is the guy whose decision it is going to do the right thing? Is breaking jurisdiction a lesser evil than the horror you're going to stop? Are you psychologically capable of doing the right thing?
3) The conflict between those two principles. If two kidnappers take one innocent hostage and are clearly going to kill the hostage, is it acceptable to kill two guilty people to protect one innocent one? What's the violence/guilt exchange rate?

The principles are simple, but reality is messy. You're always gambling a little when you try to be the lesser of two evils. As with all gambling, if you keep risking it eventually you're going to lose and be the bad guy.

Anyone got a better answer than that?

Show me one. Even one example.

Why would any of us be privy to the internal workings of intelligence agents or KnR or hostage negotiators' stories of real-world ticking time bomb scenarios? Why would they publish them in blogs or whatnot where we could find them? Any remotely responsible person, if they have to take a life in such an intense situation, would feel morally and psychologically challenged by it. That is not incentive to go bragging about it, especially not publicly.

Despite that, the basic moral challenge of the ticking time bomb scenario is a constant occurrence in war and civil law enforcement. Shoot him or he'll shoot you. Shoot the suicide bomber before he detonates. Do you execute the convicted serial killer, or give him his life in exchange for his confession to more murders that might otherwise go unsolved?

What additional criteria do you need in addition to such common scenarios for it to be a legitimate ticking time bomb scenario? I would expect the predictable frequency of these similar instances would make the scenario likely enough to be reasonably assumed.

Unless you mean to hold out for a scenario wherein everything is known to an unrealistic extent, an impossibly perfect ideal of the version of the ticking time bomb scenario that justifies torture. If that's the case, I must concede the point; impossibly perfect examples do not occur by definition.