Torture Warrants, Self-Defense, and Necessity

Authors

Fritz Allhoff, Western Michigan University

Abstract

The article examines four potential legal justifications for interrogational torture—civil disobedience, torture warrants, self-defense, and necessity defense. It argues that the necessity defense is the most appropriate legal framework for justifying torture in extreme scenarios, such as the "ticking timebomb" case, while emphasizing that legal justifications do not equate to moral endorsement. The analysis critiques other mechanisms, like torture warrants, for their potential to facilitate abuse, and highlights the necessity defense's ability to balance accountability and extreme exigency.

Disciplines

Law | Law and Society | Military, War, and Peace

Recommended Citation

Fritz Allhoff, Torture Warrants, Self-Defense, and Necessity, 11 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J. 421 (2013).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cplpej/vol11/iss3/2