Torture and Just War So much for diplomacy and the using of non-violence to retrieve valuable information from criminals. Our world today is much different from what it was so many hundred years ago when torture was seen as something proper and necessary that was the basis for people telling the truth or risking getting killed or seriously injured in the process. Nowadays there is so much red tape and bureaucracies that individuals have to respect before even thinking of perusing making it near impossible for the truth to reveal itself. But with so much war looming and violent dangers to society its time to reconsider old methods of extracting whats important from the subject. Anyhow, many people continue to be reluctant in accepting and taking into account that torture as Darelle Cole puts it is “as an act of state-sponsored force to gain information crucial to the well-being of the common good, should be consid- ered as a tactic of war, and therefore scrutinized in terms of just war theory” (Cole 26). Furthermore, it is existential for us as a society to come together and use torture as a resource to crack down on terrorists as well as captured criminals who have crucial intelligence that could lead to the capture of “bigger fishes.” With many people using violence as the last resort for getting what they want its time to re-examine that principle and see how it applies in terms of reaching the truth. In other words, its enhanced interrogation that is morally acceptable because of the simple cruel nature of war. But there are sill people that continue to belief that the ends of torturing individuals for their information does not justify the means as expressed by the Just War theorists. Moving forward the Just War theorists’s heat is very much fueled by Jeremy Bentham’s beliefs who “gives the classic utilitarian argument for torture when he argues that torture is possibly justifiable as the lesser of two evils” (Cole 26). This goes with the idea that if torture has to be used to save innocent lives it should be done without hesitation. Even so, there are those individuals who believe “torture contradicts the golden rule” which in brief implores people should treat others how they would individually like to be treated. The flaw in this argument is that fails to understand that “we take advantage of superior strength all the time in war—that is typically how we win” since the golden rule says that we should turn down from employing our superior strength on our enemies. Opponents also argue “whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder . . . whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself . . . are infamies indeed” (Cole 30). In other words those acts of torture are a moral insult against human dignity which is an action that goes against God and the good that he instills in every human. Yet, people are not convinced that torture is some type of violation inherited from creation making it evil to use for the benefit of society. Additionally, “torture need not be used “solely” as a means to an individual’s own ends, but the ends of the common good of relatively just state” (Cole 31). Cole then brings the argument that above else torture harms the torturer just as much the “victim” which he doesn’t agree with it at all. John Perry goes further to say that torture gives the torturer some time of power that makes them to actions that will deprave them ultimately at the end. Its wrong to say that because acts of force aren't done out of a sense of hatred and revenge but committed by a soldier would come from a sense of duty and love of neighbor. Torture like “soldiering should always be the kind of job done with professional detachment toward the objects of force that would preclude the kind of intense emotional involvement that could lead to vicious acts” (Cole 33). Moreover, its important that this is all