The Argument Against Torture

The information that is acquired through the use of torture is often time sensitive. A common question that is debated is, “should a terrorist be tortured if they hold information that will prevent a ticking bomb from detonating in a metropolitan area?” In this scenario, torturing the terrorist is the only way to prevent the bomb from exploding. Without question, the lives of the thousands of innocent Americans in danger far outweigh the life of the terrorist. Although we do not intend to kill the suspect when we torture him, this always remains a possibility if they do not comply. The suspect should be tortured until he reveals the location of the bomb because the only reason we value his life is to disarm the bomb. If the explosion were to
Because of this ambiguity, we cannot withhold these rights from foreign terrorists on our lands. One of our deepest convictions is to provide equality to all people, and we believe in the virtue of justice. For this reason, the idea that “the right against torture is not inalienable” is false. I agree that the Just War Tradition gives inherent worth to all people, but it cannot be combined with the Forfeiture Theory because we do not have a just cause to harm non-combatants whom are no longer actively taking up arms against us. It is not necessary to harm people who will never again be in a position to harm us. Moreover, there is ample evidence to show that not all detainees in military prisons were involved in war. It is often the case that the prisoners are innocent and were mistakenly identified as someone else. A central moral principle we hold is that all people have the right to not be harmed, and we must respect this fundamental right because it protects our moral compass. By damaging this seemingly small idea, we are initiating a process that over many years could destroy our identity. The same notion extends to our government’s overseas properties. It is important to recognize that the Constitution is not the official law of the