IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED?
As I feel the author is dealing with perhaps the most sensitive and most agonizing issue - that is the use of torture ever justified? While I understand that the law does not permit torture under any circumstances. But as the author says if there is a "bomb" ticking, and you have a suspect who knows where the bomb is, I think it is justified to use torture in any possible way (simple or extreme), to get the answer because it will save many innocent lives which will be lost otherwise. While I think it is justified in "ticking bomb" scenario or extreme situations, but even torture does not guarantee success ingetting the right information. Because terrorists and just criminals are set from different cloth, while terrorists firmly believe in what they are doing is right, since they are hard men and women - so they may not give you the right information, even in extreme torture conditions, whereas simply criminals might succumb to the torture tactics and give the right information, which can be used to save many innocent lives.
I completely agree with the writer's view when he says that terrorist's game is to get public recognition by intimidating governments, influential people into getting what they want. If someone kidnapped a child or a group of people for getting ransom money or for releasing a hard core criminal from jail, and the police even after arresting the criminal does not use the preventative interrogational torture because it is against law or on the question of morality, then the results can be catastrophic. In my opinion, to deny the use of preventive interrogational torture may be as cold hearted or immoral as it is to permit torture in the first place. It is cold hearted, because in catastrophic cases, the failure to use preventive interrogational torture will result in death of innocent people. Upholding the rights of the suspect will negate the rights, including the very fundamental right to life of...