Michael Levin's The Case For Torture

In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin’s argument points out his beliefs in thinking that torture is justified in most cases. His statements throughout the article are pointed to more of a one sided approach in saying that it is barbaric, but is really supporting in the ways torture can be useful. To people that would disagree with the author’s points in the argument, Levin provides a good outlet to both sides that are pro-torture and non-torture, but, he goes more into thinking that it is unwise. To Levin’s understanding torture can only be used to save innocent people’s lives. His article has many provocative statements that make you question whether or not torture is a good way to find out about lifesaving intel or just to be used for

In his article he tends to use terrorists behind his reasoning for the use of torture which are solid reasons, but instead he could use actual statistics in those instances where he stated those opinions. By Levin saying that torturing a terrorist is unconstitutional but, do millions of lives outweigh constitutionality, then, could torture be considered barbaric? Torture could be a useful tool in the war on terror by finding out information that could be used to save innocent lives and most kidnapping cases. John W. Schiemann, author of the study on torture and a political scientist at Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that information gained from torture techniques when they are employed, they are found to generate even small amounts of valuable information within the practice. ("Interrogational Torture” Effective or Purely Sadistic?" 1). One of the reasons why torture is listed in a grey area is because of the unwillingness to do what would be necessary to gain information even if it proves to be

Torture should definitely not be used as a main support of information even if Levin uses stances to bolster his argument such as this, “Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said, “yes”, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.” (The Case for Torture 1). In this case, just because they were to use torture as a means to finding their kidnapped babies what he fails to mention in his article is that if they were given the chance to do so, that they could go too far and end up killing the kidnapper, which could have been an ulterior motive behind the mother’s reasoning to do so. If it were to be used in such a manner, how could anybody really be stopped from abusing that power if it goes