CR: 5 I decided to read the article called Want to torture? Get a warrant. This article starts off by talking about torture being justified in specific situations. For example, it uses the ticking bomb scenario. This means that torture can be justified in order to force a political criminal to reveal the location of an explosive device before it can go off and kill many people. A number of people believe that torture can never be justified in a “moral society” no matter what the intent. Famous commentator and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz disagrees. He believes that torture can be justified in certain instances especially when many lives are in danger. He believes that most Americans would want law enforcement to use such methods even if the United Nations forbids torture no matter the circumstance. Dershowitz proposes a “torture warrant” where 1.there is an absolute need to obtain information in order to save lives, 2. Probable cause that the suspect has valuable information. The suspect would have immunity from prosecution based on information given. The warrant will limit torture to non-lethal means. They recognize that torture has been used before and think that if it’s already used, wouldn’t it be better to regulate it? Human rights watch is an international group dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world counters Dershowitz. They state that the ticking bomb scenario is down for debate that specific situation rarely ever happens. Interrogators rarely learn that a suspect in custody has information about a terrorist attack or bombing. They state that the ticking bomb scenario could be dangerous and could lead to more torture being used on people who have unspecified information about a terrorist attack. They think this will cause a slippery slope. I can understand both sides of the argument whether torture could be justified or not. But I think personally if you can save many lives for the cost of one. That seems like a reasonable risk for the use of extensive measures. If I were in the position where I had a prisoner that for a fact he had knowledge of a terrorist attack. And if he refuses to cooperate even with a shorter sentence and anything else that could be incentive for him to reveal the information then the last option would have to be torture because the time frame window is way too small. I think anyone in that same position would be inclined to do so as well for the sake of many innocent people in danger.