In today’s time, people would consider a lot of things such as being polygamy; prostituting, arranged marriages and torture are sinful in the U.S which the acts are forbidden. Countries outside of the U.S doesn’t see these actions consider it taboo, they consider it normal. With more action and crimes that happen here the more restricted the laws will be here. We still continue to use rights for foreigners that commit what we think is taboo. If we were to capture a terrorist that killed millions, they wouldn’t talk; they would want a phone call. They were trained to learn how our laws operate. Did we forget that they know their rights as the much as the average American? Did we not know that they don’t care what taboo to us is? We just make things too easy for them. Based on the essay, “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin, people would think that torture is too bad to be allowed. Societies that have a higher way of thinking completely reject torture. Other societies who are suspected of using it will most likely anger the US and be put on the spot. Acting against it is not a wise thing to do, because in some cases torture is a moral necessity. Let’s say a man plants a bomb and says it will blow up on a certain day, unless he gets what he wants. If we find the man and follow due process, get his lawyer etc. to get him to the death penalty, we'll never find the bomb before it is set to explode. Torture is necessary to locate the bomb or else millions of people will die. This situation should be addressed with an open mind, have millions of people die along with the terrorist? Or make the terrorist suffer pain to save those lives? Torturing the terrorist might be unconstitutional, but millions of lives outweigh whether or not it is constitutional. Torture of one man to save lives is less barbaric than mass murder. Only a coward would want to not agree to torture, because they'd rather not ruin their good name and save a million lives doing so. Could anyone sleep at night knowing that a million people died, just because they weren't brave enough to shake a man a little for the info to save them? Once you decide that torture is needed in extreme cases, you admit that deciding to use torture, are basically innocent lives being in danger and torture is the means required to save them. Not saying that torture should be used as punishment. Punishment is usually meant for things that already happened in the past, which we cannot change. I'm stating that torture should be used to prevent future evils. Giving the death penalty to someone who already murdered people won't bring the ones who were murdered back. Torture, isn't meant to bring back that has died, but to prevent more innocent people from dying. The biggest argument against torture would have to be, that torturing a person goes against the individuals rights. If the rights of the terrorist are important, then it is equally important to protect the rights of the people who a being threatened by the terrorist. If lives are so valuable that they should be saved no matter the cost, then the lives in jeopardy should be saved no matter the cost, even if it is one life of the one threatening the lives. Better earlier examples that help identify the reasons torture should be used, would be assassination and pre-emptive attack. Seeing what Hitler was doing, no one would've cared if Hitler was assassinated, if it were possible to do so. A lot of Americans would have been angry if they knew Roosevelt could've assassinated Hitler in 1943, which would've avoided a war and saved millions of lives, but decided to not do so, because it’s against morality. If nation A learns that another nation is going to launch an attack on them for no reason, nation A has the right to launch the attack 1st to save itself. There's a big difference between terrorists and their victims that should quiet people who are talking about the terrorists "rights." The terrorists victims are endangered