The notorious Bybee Memorandum produced by the Bush Administration in 2002 defends the use of coercive interrogation by (among other things) arguing that torturing terrorists in order to prevent future harm could be justified as a form of "self-defense." This argument relies on a recent and little-known theory of self-defense that I call the "distributive justice" theory. The goal of this essay is to demonstrate that distributive justice is a flawed theory of self-defense and must be rejected, thus undercutting the argument that torture can be justified as self-defense. Harm inflicted on a person who is in custody and no longer able to commit further acts of violence cannot plausibly be considered a form of self-defense.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Spring 2008 (22.1) • Review
Inventing Human Rights: A History by Lynn Hunt
Lynn Hunt's "Inventing Human Rights" develops an intriguing meditation on the relationships among art, morality, and political change. Hunt also raises questions of profound importance ...
Spring 2008 (22.1) • Review
Development as a Human Right: Legal, Political, and Economic Dimensions edited by Bard A. Andreassen and Stephen P. Marks
This book sets out to address the concepts of the right to development as well as the human rights-based approach to development. It includes contributions ...
Spring 2008 (22.1) • Review
The Clash Within: Religion, Violence, and India's Future by Martha C. Nussbaum
Nussbaum argues that her contribution is as that of a loudspeaker, since she feels that Indian developments are wrongly ignored in the United States and ...