In a world where terrorism has become a significant threat to humanity and endangering the economy of countries. In a bid to save their citizens and economy, governments worldwide have considered legalizing the torture of captured terrorists. It is with this regard that the argument of legalizing torture rather than use it hypocritically is regarded. Though some individuals, as well as some government, may term torture as going against humanitarian rights, it is with this that some great philosophers like Bentham have brought very compelling arguments on its legalization.
Though terrorist is known for giving misleading information when tortured does not form a basis why the government should not try to use the method to save lives. With this regard, the ticking bomb scenario argues that torturing a guilty individual in a bid to save millions of civilians is justifiable. In his argument, Bentham considers that pain is redeemable compared to death, which is not. He further says that thousands of individuals’ lives should be valued more than one guilty individual. Focusing on Zacarias Moussaoui’s case where the FBI applied every lawful technique to make him talk, but without avail, he was compelled to use torture as a last resort. However, it is uncertain that torture will work; thereby, it has sorted as the last hope for saving dozens of lives, as Bethan puts it in supporting his argument.
Scholars like Abraham and Harvey have continued to argue that torture is necessary when preventing the killing of a significant number of civilians but should only be used unnoticeably or off the screen. Allan Keyes suggested that torture though essential in some situations goes beyond the human rights act. The decision to torture guilty terrorists should only be left at the president’s hands. He continues to say that unlawful acts might be necessary to save a nation. Even though some may argue that acts of torture that the public is unaware of should be committed to the screen, still scholars like Francois de La Rochefoucauld compose a different argument. He argues that hypocrisy is the homage that vice renders to virtue.
In some cases, most governments may prefer hypocrisy to avoid conflict between security and civil liberty. In doing so, they end up compromising the value of democratic accountability. Bethan argues that government is a choice of evils, and in a democracy, such decisions should be made openly.
Though many scholars have argued that torture should be used in extreme cases, it is still termed unlawful. In the case of 1978, where Italy former Prime Minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped and threatened with death, Italy would have sort to torture but not the chance. When the General, by then, was approached with this idea, he rejected it. He claimed that Italy could survive the loss of their prime minister but would not survive the introduction of torture. Geneva Convention prohibited all forms of torture. In its definition of torture, they used many technicalities around the world—thereby claiming that suffering should not be inflicted on any individual.
To sum it up, though, it is argued that torture is used for the greater good of the civilians and has worked in some cases. Therefore, if it has to be applied, be used following the book. Torture of terrorists should only be used in extreme cases and where the lives of many civilians are at stake. With this regard, this act should be done with openness. This will avoid hypocrisy in a democratic government.