It is generallyassumedthat torfure is impermissible,a throwbackto a more brutal age.

Enlightenedsocietiesreject it outright, and regimessuspectedof using it risk the wrath of the

UnitedStates.

I believethis attitudeis unwise.Thereare situationsin which torture is not merely

permissiblebut morally mandatory.Moreover,thesesituationsaremoving from the realmof
imasinationto fact.

Supposea terrorist hashidden an atomic bomb on ManhattanIsland which will detonateat

noon on July 4 unless... herefollow the usualdemandsfor moneyandreleaseof his friends
from jail. Suppose,further, that he is caughtat 10 a.m. on the fateful day, but preferring
deathto failure,won't disclosewherethe bomb is. What do we do?If we follorv dueprocess,
wait for his lawyer, arcaignhim,millions of peoplewill die. If the only way to savethose
lives is to subjectthe terrorist to the most excruciatingpossiblepain, what groundscan there
be for not doing so?I suggestthere arenone.In any case,I ask you to facethe questionwith
an openmind.

Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional?Probably.But millions of lives surely outweigh

constitutionality.Torture is barbaric?Mass murder is far more barbaric.Indeed,letting
millions of innocentsdie in deferenceto one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice,an
unwillingnessto dirty one'shands.If you caughtthe terrorist,could you sleepnights
knowing that millions died becauseyou couldn'tbring yourself to apply the electrodes?

Onceyou concedethat torfure is justified in extremecases,you haveadmittedthat the

decisionto usetorture is a matter of balancinginnocentlives againstthe meansneededto
savethem. You must now face more realistic casesinvolving more modestnumbers.
Someoneplants a bomb on a jumbo jet. He alonecan disarm it, andhis demandscannotbe
met (or they can, we refuseto set a precedentby yielding to his threats).Sureiywe can, we
must,do anythingto the extorticinistto savethe passengers. Horv canwe tell 300, or 100,or
10peoplewho'neveraskedto be put in danger,"I'm son1,you'll haveto die in agony,we just
couldn'tbring ourselvesto . . . "

Here arethe resultsof an informal poll about a third, hypothetical,case.Supposea terrorist

goup kidnappeda newbornbaby from a hospital.I askedfour mothersif they would
approveof torturing kidnappersif that were necessaryto get their own newbornsback. All
saidr.es.the most "liberal" addinethat shewould like to administerit herself.

I am not advocatingtorture aspunishment.Punishmentis addressedto deedsirrevocably

past.Rather,I am advocatingtorture as an acceptablemeasurefor preventingfuture eviis. So
understood,it is far lessobjectionablethan many extantpunishments.Opponentsof the death
penalty,for example,are forever insistingthat executinga murdererwill not bring back his
victim (as if the purposeof capitalpunishmentwere supposedto be resurrection,not
deterrenceor retribution). But torture, in the casesdescribed,is intendednot to bring anyone
back but to keep innocentsfrom being dispatched.The most powerful argumentagainst
using torture as a punishmentor to secureconfessionsis that suchpracticesdisregardthe
rights of the individual. Well, if the individual is all that important,and he is, it is
correspondinglyimportantto protectthe rights of individualsthreatenedby terrorists.If life
is so valuablethat it must neverbe taken,the lives of the innocentsmust be savedeven at the
price of hurting the one who endangersthem.

Better precedentsfor torture are assassination and pre-emptiveattack.No Allied leader

would haveflinchedat assassinating Hitler, had that beenpossible.(The Allies did
assassinate Heydrich.) Americans would be angeredto leam that Rooseveltcould havehad
Hitier killed in 1943,therebyshorteningthe war and savingmillions of lives,but refusedon
moral grounds.Similarly, if nation A learnsthat nation B is aboutto launch an unprovoked
affack,A has a right to saveitself by destroyingB's military capability first. In the sameway,
if the police can by tofiure savethosewho would otherwisedie at the handsof kidnappersor
terrorists,they must.

Thereis an important differencebetweenterroristsand their victims that shouldmute talk of

the terrorists'"rights." The terrorist'svictims are at risk unintentionally,not having askedto
be endangered.But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions.Unlike his victims, he
volunteeredfor the risks of his deed.By threateningto kill for profit or idealism,he
renouncescivilized standards,and he can have no complaintif civilization tries to thwart him
by whatevermeansnecessary.

Justastorture is justified only to savelives (not extort confessionsor incantations),it is

justifiably administeredonly to thoseknown to hold innocentlives in their hands.Ah, but
how call the authoritiesever be surethey havethe right malefactor?Isn't there a dangerof
error and abuse? Won't '?\VE?t turn into "TIfiM?" Questionslike theseare disingenuousin a
world in which terroristsproclaim themselvesand perform for television.The name of their
gameis public recognition.After all, you can't very well intimidate a governmentinto
releasingyour freedomfightersunlessyou announcethat it is your group that has seizedits
embassy."Clearguilt" is difficult to def,rne, but when 40 million peopleseea group of
maskedgunmenseizean airplaneon the eveningnews,there is not much questionaboutwho
the perpetratorsare. Therewill be hard casesu'herethe situationis murkier. Nonetheless,a
line demarcatingthe legitimateuse of torrure can be drawn. Torfure only the obviously
guilty, and only for the sakeof savinginnocents,and the line between"IJS" and "TFIEM"
will remainclear.

Thereis little dangerthat the Westerndemocracieswill losetheir way if they chooseto

inflict pain as one \\/ay of preservingorder.Paralysisin the face of evil is the greaterdanger.
Someda,v soona terroristwill threatentensof thousandsof lives. andtorlurewill be the only
way to savethem. We had better startthinking aboutthis.